Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Alexandre Tilgenkamp against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-191/03)
Language of the Case: French
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 2003 by Alexandre Tilgenkamp, resident in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Eric Boigelot.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(annul the decision of the appointing authority of 24 July 2002 to publish vacancy notice COM/125/02 for the post of Deputy Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture;
(annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 November 2002 to appoint another candidate to that vacant post;
(annul the decision of the appointing authority of 27 November 2002 not to select the applicant for that post;
(order the defendant to pay to the applicant, provisionally, the sum of EUR 1 from an amount to be determined for non-material harm, and a sum, assessed on an equitable basis, in damages for non-material harm and prejudice to the applicant's career equal to half of the amount of the material damage which will be finally determined;
(order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in this case challenges both the rejection of his application for the post of Deputy Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture (vacancy notice COM/125/02) and the appointment of another candidate to that post.
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads that Article 7, the second paragraph of Article 25, the third paragraph of Article 27, Article 29(1)(a) and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, and the code of conduct adopted on 18 September 1999 on appointments to Grades A 1 and A 2 were infringed, that the appointment procedure was flawed, that there was a misuse of powers, and that general principles of law, such as the principle of legality (failure to observe the terms of the vacancy notice) and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, were disregarded.
He contends in particular that the appointment of the candidate ultimately chosen, who had been already been appointed once before, was predetermined and that everything contributed towards his being appointed again, including publication of a vacancy notice particularly lacking its essential elements, that is to say precisely those which had led the Court of First Instance to annul the previous appointment of the same candidate to the same post.
1 It therefore appears from objective, relevant and consistent evidence that the contested measures were taken in order to achieve an end other than that of complying in good faith with the judgment in Case T-158/01.