|
20.8.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 205/26 |
Action brought on 7 June 2005 by Kurt Jacobs against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-220/05)
(2005/C 205/48)
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 7 June 2005 by Kurt Jacobs, residing in Bruges (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
1. |
annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 11 February 2005, notified on 14 February 2005 and received on 27 February 2005, rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 16 November 2004, by which he sought annulment of three decisions adopted on 16 August 2004, 24 August 2004 and 31 August 2004 insofar as they determined his grade on recruitment as B*3, step 2, and fixed his remuneration at a basic salary of EUR 3 101,85; |
|
2. |
in addition, to the extent necessary, annul the decisions against which that complaint was brought, dated 16 August 2004, 24 August 2004 and 31 August 2004; |
|
3. |
order the Commission to pay damages in the sum of EUR 250 000. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant was a candidate for external competition COM/B/1/02 intended to constitute a reserve for future recruitment for administrative assistants of grade B5 or B4. Having been successful in that competition, he received an offer of a post from Commission DG RELEX by electronic mail on 20 April 2004. On 21 April 2004 he accepted that offer. However, the instrument of appointment was not drawn up until 31 August 2004 since the applicant first had to terminate the contract between him and his previous employer. By application of the new provisions of the Staff Regulations which came into force on 1 May 2004, he was recruited at grade B*3, step 2, although the former grade B5, stated in the notice of competition, corresponds to the new grade B*5. His basic salary was, therefore, significantly lower than it would have been under the former system.
The applicant therefore seeks annulment of the contested decisions relating to his appointment and the setting of his grade and compensation for the loss which he alleges he has suffered. Under his first plea, he alleges infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, of the duty of the administration to have regard for the interests of officials and of the binding provisions of the notice of competition. In that context, he also submits that the decision appointing him was, in reality, taken before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations by the exchange of electronic mails on 20 and 21 April 2004.
Furthermore, by his second plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, on the ground that he was appointed to a grade lower than that stated in the notice of competition and to which other successful candidates from the same competition were recruited.