Action brought on 27 December 2004 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-503/04)

(2005/C 57/63)

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 27 December 2004 by José Pedro Pessoa e Costa, residing in Brussels, 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 should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Commission official, applied for a transfer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). His application having been rejected, the applicant brought an action before the Court (1) which resulted in annulment of the contested measure. (2) Following that annulment, the defendant took a fresh decision on the applicant's application and rejected it again by the decision contested by the present action.

In support of his action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 233 EC, of the principle of proportionality and of the duty to state reasons, as well as an error in law. The applicant submits that the contested decision merely repeats the arguments put forward in the first decision to reject his application, which was annulled by the Court, and does not contain any explanation making it possible to ascertain whether the rejection of the applicant's application is based on an assessment of the various interests involved, as was required by the Court in its judgment. Moreover, the Commission wrongly took the view that the applicant's transfer would result in the closure of a disciplinary procedure against him. Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful because the Commission took on the role of exercising the discretion of the EMCDDA Selection Board by claiming, in its reply to his complaint, that it could not be ruled out that the result of the EMCDDA's selection procedure would have been different if the Selection Board had been informed of the accusations against the applicant.

(1)  Case T-166/02 (OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002, p. 32).

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2003 (OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003, p. 20).