Notice for the OJ

 

ASK requerante "Insérer le nom de la partie requérante" \* CHARFORMAT ASK domicilereq " établie à...? insérer le domicile de la partie requérante" ASK date "Recours introduit le...? (insérer la date)" \* CHARFORMAT ASK ldp "Langue de procédure?" \* CHARFORMAT ASK numaff "Affaire T-...? (insérer numéro/annèe)" \* CHARFORMAT ASK agent " Insérer le nom du représentant de la partie requérante " \* CHARFORMAT

Action brought on 19 January 2005 by Claire Staelen against European Parliament

(Case T-32/05)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 January 2005 by Claire Staelen, residing in Bridel (Luxembourg), represented by Joëlle Choucroun, lawyer, having an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the selection board of 18 August 2004 in Competition EUR/A/151/98;

order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the sum of € 30 000 in respect of compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered, increased by the statutory interest in force in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg from the date of the judgment to be delivered until full and final settlement, the substantive damage being reserved;

order the European Parliament to pay all of the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant had brought an action against the decision of the selection board in Competition EUR/151/98. By judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 5 March 2003 in Case T-24/01, that decision was set aside. Following that annulment, the Parliament reopened the competition and the selection board resumed its deliberations. By the decision contested in the present case, the selection board for the competition decided not to place the applicant on the list of successful candidates.

In support of her action, the applicant alleges a breach of Article 233 EC, maintenance of discriminatory treatment and infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

____________