Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Sandrine Corvoisier and Others against the European Central Bank

(Case T-126/05)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 2005 by Sandrine Corvoisier, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main, Roberta Friz, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main, Hundjy Preud'homme, residing in Frankfurt, and Elvira Rosati, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

-    annul vacancy notice ECB/156/04 aimed at filling six posts as "Records Management Specialists",

-    in so far as necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the "administrative reviews " and "grievance procedures" brought by the applicants, decisions dated 1 October and 21 December 2004 respectively and notified between 27 December 2004 and 13 January 2005,

-    annul any decision taken in implementation of the vacancy notice and, in particular, recruitment decisions,

-    order the defendant to produce its administrative file,

-    order the defendant to award damages for pecuniary harm, which should be assessed on an equitable basis and provisionally at EUR 40,000, and for non-pecuniary harm, which should be assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 4,

-    order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants occupy posts at the ECB as "Research Analysts " , in grade E/F. One of the conditions required for access to their post was that the person concerned must hold a university degree.

On 13 July 2004, the applicant published the vacancy notice in question, aimed at recruiting six "Records Management Specialists " in order to assist in and supplement the Bank's archives unit. Those posts were classified in the same grade as the applicants' posts, i.e. in grade E/F. The vacancy notice required that candidates had completed their secondary education.

In support of their action, the applicants claim that there has been a breach of Article 20.2 of the Internal Rules of the ECB, the ECB 's Guidelines on the "development track ", of the administrative circular on recruitment and also of the principle patere legem epse quam fecisti. They refer to the fact that a university degree was an essential requirement for their recruitment whereas the contested notice required only completion of secondary education; they also rely on a breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicants further claim that there has been a breach of Articles 45 and 46 of the Conditions of Employment, relying on the fact that there was no prior consultation of the Staff Committee. Last, the applicants claim that there has been a manifest error of assessment.

____________