30.4.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/83

Action brought on 11 March 2004 by Massimo Giannini against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-100/04)

(2004/C 106/163)

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 11 March 2004 by Massimo Giannini, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/A/9/01 not to include his name on the competition reserve list;

—

make an order awarding damages for the material damage suffered, assessed as the difference between the unemployment benefit received after the end of the contract as a temporary member of staff and the salary of an official in Grade A7, step 4 and, secondly, after the period of unemployment, assessed as the amount of the remuneration of an official in Grade 7, step 5;

—

make an order awarding damages for the non-material damage suffered, assessed at EUR 1;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject matter of this application concerns the exclusion of the applicant's name from the reserve list resulting from Competition COM/A/9/01 with a view to constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators (A7/A6) in the fields of economics and statistics.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of Articles 4, 27, 29, 30 and 31 of and Annex III to the Staff Regulations, disregard for the interests of the service, breach of the competition notice and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and infringement of Article 1 of Decision 2002/621/EC of the Secretaries General of the Community Institutions inasmuch as two of the successful candidates whose names appear on the reserve list and who are officials are already in Grade A7/A6 and thus occupy posts as economists in that career bracket.

He further alleges:

—

breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in particular inasmuch as the selection board did not apply assessment criteria consistently, so that the applicant did not have the same conditions applied to him as were applied to the other candidates;

—

manifest error of assessment in the present case;

—

disregard for the principle of sound administration and infringement of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of the Annex thereto, inasmuch as the board were not qualified to assess the tests objectively.

The applicant also alleges irregularity in the conduct of the procedure, misuse of powers and lack of powers and breach of the principle of non-retrospectivity.