Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 27 October 2003 by Philippe Vanlangendonck against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-361/03)

    (Language of the case: French)

An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 October 2003 against the Commission of the European Communities by Philippe Vanlangendonck, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Bernard Laurent, Lawyer.

The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

(Verify the legality of the rejection of complaints Nos R/13403 and R/139/03 registered by ADMIN. B2 ( Appeals Unit, on 27 March 2003, adopted by the acting Director of EPSO in his capacity of appointing authority on 17 July 2002, notified by letter sent on 25 July 2003 and received on 28 July 2003 in relation to a refusal to annul or amend a published list of successful candidates in competition COM/A/10/01 which was manifestly vitiated by errors or irregularities;

(Verify the legality of the refusal by the Chairman of the selection board in competition COM/A/10/01 and the appointing authority to explain and disclose objective and relevant information;

(Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 400 000 to the applicant by way of damages for the loss suffered (subject to increase or decrease of that sum in the course of the proceedings).

Pleas and main arguments adduced in support

The applicant takes exception to the administration's refusal to annul or amend a published list of successful candidates in competition COM/A/10/01 which was manifestly vitiated by errors or irregularities and the refusal to provide information as asked for by the applicant to enable him to consider whether or not he has been the subject of discrimination on grounds of his nationality in the course of the procedure and the compilation of results of the oral test in the abovementioned competition.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

(a manifest error of law or of fact in that the selection board placed 156 people on the list of successful candidates rather than the 150 prescribed by the competition notice;

(breach of the principle of the rule of law and of the EC Treaty since, contrary to the opinion of the chairman of the selection board, the Director of EPSO stated that the competition notice does not allow for the possibility of an oral test on an ex aequo basis, even though it is settled case-law that the selection board is bound by the terms of the competition notice;

(breach of the principle of equal treatment of candidates. The applicant asks in that connection why the selection board, which performed its duties perfectly well in selecting and comparing the merits of candidates ranging from best to 149th in order of merit, suddenly proved incapable of comparing and making a selection among seven candidates on an ex aequo basis.

____________