Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2012 - Strack v Commission

(Case F-44/05 RENV)

(Civil Service - Officials - Referral to the Tribunal following annulment - Waiver of immunity of the servants of an institution in respect of words spoken and documents written in the course of legal proceedings - Appointment to a post of Head of Unit - Rejection of an application - Action for annulment - Unsuccessful candidate's interest in bringing proceedings - Authority of res judicata - Procedural defect - Balancing of the interests at stake - Action for damages - Non-material damage suffered by reason of an irregularity)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: N.A. Lödler and H. Tettenborn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and B. Eggers, Agents)

Re:

Referral following annulment - Civil Service - First, annulment of the Commission's decision to reject the applicant's application for the post of Head of the 'Tenders and contracts' Unit and to appoint another candidate to that post and, second, a claim for damages (formerly Case T-225/05).

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

Rejects the request for a waiver of the immunity given to the servants of the Commission of the European Communities in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission as being inadmissible;

Rejects the claim for compensation in respect of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure for filling the post and in respect of the excessive duration of the pre-litigation procedure as being unfounded;

Annuls the decision appointing Mr A and the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 19 November 2004 rejecting Mr Strack's application to be appointed to the post of Head of the 'Tenders and contracts' Unit of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities;

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in Cases F-44/05 Strack v Commission, T-526/08 P Commission v Strack and F-44/05 RENV Strack v Commission and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Strack in those cases.

____________