Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 26 March 2004 by Giuseppe Caló against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-118/04)

(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 March 2004 by Giuseppe Caló, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

-    annul the Commission decisions of 9 July and 1 October 2003 and, in so far as necessary, the decision of the President of the Commission of 29 July 2003;

-    order the Commission to pay the applicant one euro by way of symbolic compensation for non-material damage suffered;

-    order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The applicant in the present case challenges the decision by the appointing authority to re-assign him, and four other directors of the DG ESTAT, together with his post, to the duties of principal adviser to the Director General of the directorate general to which he is assigned, as well as the decision to initiate the procedure for filling the posts for directors of the directorates ESTAT/B, ESTAT/C, ESTAT/D, ESTAT/E and ESTAT/F, on the basis of Article 29(1)(a) and (c) and Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations.

Those decisions were adopted following the establishment of irregularities within EUROSTAT.

In support of his claims the applicant pleads:

-    infringement of Article 2(1) of the Staff Regulations and the Commission Decisions of 21 January 1998 and 9 November 2001 on the exercise of the powers of the appointing authority, inasmuch as the decision to transfer the applicant to the post of principal adviser was taken by an authority not having the powers of an appointing authority;

-    infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons;

-    illegality of the vacancy notices COM/173/03, COM/174/03, COM/175/03, COM/176/03 and COM/177/03, inasmuch as they establish no framework of legality in regard to which the institution is to seek to carry out a comparative examination of the candidates' respective merits;

-    Finally, the contested decisions undermine the applicant's professional reputation and dignity.

____________