Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 4 August 2004 by Vladimir Boucek against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-318/04)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 August 2004 by Vladimir Boucek, residing in Prague (Czech Republic), represented by Libuse Krafftova, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the decision of 29 March 2004 refusing the applicant admittance to the written test of the competition notification of which was given in Official Journal C 120 A/13;

-    restore the applicant to the position he was in before the adoption of the decision of 29 March 2004 to refuse him admittance;

-    order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted an application for competition EPSO/A/2/03 for the constitution of a reserve list of assistant administrators (A 8) of Czech nationality. According to the competition notice, the application was to be submitted by Internet. By the contested decision the applicant's candidature was refused on the ground that he had not submitted his written application within the time-limit prescribed.

The applicant challenges that decision. He submits that, at the time of publication of the results of the preselection tests and the connected invitation to submit personal documents to the defendant within three weeks, the defendant, exceptionally, sent no notice to the candidates by email, as it had done in all other phases of the competition. Thus that must be considered discontinuous, inconsistent and a serious procedural defect.

The applicant further asserts that, arbitrarily and in disregard of the purpose of the process, some qualified candidates who in the circumstances were unable to comply with the short time-limit imposed were rejected. The fixing of a time-limit of less than three weeks was wholly disproportionate in view of the overall duration of the procedure of nine months. The defendant did not sufficiently appreciate the importance of this phase of the competition and failed to take appropriate measures to make all hitherto successful candidates aware of the time-limit. By so doing, it failed to use its discretion in an appropriate manner.

____________