Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-137/03)

    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 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(set aside the decision of the appointing authority of 28 June 2002 not to appoint the applicant to the post of medical consultant to the 'Brussels Medical Service' Unit of DG Admin B8;

(set aside the express decision of 23 January 2003 dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant;

(set aside the appointment of another candidate to the post of medical consultant, which involved inter alia rejection of the applicant's candidature for the vacant post;

(order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 15 000 assessed ex æquo et bono as compensation for non-material damage and the adverse effect on the applicant's career;

(order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant, who is a medical doctor, is an official working in the Commission's medical service. In response to a notice of vacancy, she submitted her application for a post of medical consultant. The appointing authority did not select her and another candidate was appointed to that post.

The applicant takes the view that the appointing authority has breached Articles 14, 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and has infringed the principles of legality, equal treatment of applicants, entitlement to pursue a career, equal opportunity, and equality as between men and women. In support of her claims, the applicant submits further that the appointing authority acted improperly during the appointment procedure and was guilty of a misuse of powers.

According to the applicant, the appointing authority committed a manifest error of assessment in selecting a candidate who did not satisfy the conditions set out in the notice of vacancy. The appointment of that candidate should for that reason be set aside. The applicant also asserts that there has been an infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the rules governing the deliberations of the selection board. She claims that certain members of the selection board were not adequately qualified and/or lacked the impartiality and objectivity necessary for sitting on such a board. Furthermore, the staff reports of the applicant and of the candidate appointed evaluate their respective activities and profiles according to different criteria and provisions of the Staff Regulations. In conclusion, the applicant submits that the appointing authority infringed the principle of equality as between men and women. She argues that she was more meritorious than the candidate who was appointed. Moreover, in the event that her merits should be deemed to have been no more than equivalent to those of that candidate, priority ought to have been given to the applicant by reason of the fact that she is a woman.

____________