Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 2 August 2005 - Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-301/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Philippe Guigard (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

hold that the European Community is non-contractually liable in respect of the unlawful conduct of the Commission following the Commission's failure, in irregular circumstances, to renew the contract of employment between it and the applicant;

order the defendant to pay damages and interest in compensation for both the applicant's professional loss (of an initial indicative amount of EUR 350 000) and his non-material loss (in an amount left to the fair and just assessment of the Court);

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission's failure, in circumstances which the applicant considers irregular, to renew the contract of employment which he had concluded with the defendant in the context of technical cooperation between the European Community and the Government of Niger.

It should be noted in that regard that the applicant is an expert on the EuropAid list who, since 1992, has carried out a number of tasks as a contractual employee of the Commission. On 7 March 2002, he signed a contract of employment with the Commission for twelve months as a technical assistant with the Ministry for Equipment and Transport in Niamey. The task proceeded satisfactorily. The renewal of that contract was the subject of an official enquiry by the Ministry in its capacity as national authorising officer of the European Development Fund (EDF).

In support of his claims, the applicant submits, firstly, that there has been an infringement of the IV Lomé Convention, in that the Commission did not comply with the division of powers between the national authorising officer and the Head of the Delegation, the latter not being able to oppose the renewal of the contract, since Article 313.2(k) of the Convention gives sole jurisdiction to the national authorising officer of the EDF in matters of recruitment of experts in technical assistance, the only obligation being to inform the Head of the Delegation thereof. Furthermore, and in any event, the Commission did not comply with the obligatory time-limit of 30 days laid down in Article 314 of the Convention within which it was to reply to the national authorising officer's request concerning the renewal of the contract.

Finally, the applicant claims that there was an infringement of the principles of sound administration, of the duty of care and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

____________