Action brought on 5 October 2005 -Seegmuller v Commission

(Case T-377/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties:

Applicant: Magali Seegmuller (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by: K.H. Hagenaar, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Decision of 5 July 2005 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission which prevents the applicant from making her posting effective and from taking up her post in the Guinea Conakry delegation as head of administration of that delegation;

grant in principle the applicant's claim for compensation, to be quantified at a later date, which arises from the material and non-material harm caused to her by the defendant;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a member of temporary staff at the Commission, applied for the post of head of administration in Congo Brazzaville (Vacancy notice COM/2004/2982/F). On 5 January 2005, she was informed that she had passed the selection board. Asked by Commission DG RELEX whether she would accept another delegation, the applicant also agreed to be posted to Guinea Conakry.

As is the practice, the applicant underwent a medical examination with a view to her departure for the delegation in Guinea Conakry. By note of 17 March 2005, the Commission's medical officer stated that the applicant did not have the required physical aptitudes to carry out her functions in that delegation. Following that note, DG RELEX informed the applicant that she could not take up the post in Guinea Conakry. The applicant therefore submitted a complaint against that decision, which was rejected by the contested decision of 5 July 2005.

In support of her action, the applicant claims that it was not within the competence of the Director of DG RELEX to make the decision of 15 April 2005 and that there was a misuse of powers. Furthermore, she submits that there were alleged errors of assessment on the part of the Commission's medical officer, whose report of 17 March 2005 fails to establish, she alleges, any comprehensible link between the medical findings which it contains and the conclusions which he draws from them.

____________