EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/300/100
Case T-411/04: Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-411/04: Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-411/04: Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
OB C 300, 4.12.2004, p. 51–52
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.12.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 300/51 |
Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-411/04)
(2004/C 300/100)
Language of the case: French
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 October 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne, residing in Etterbeek (Belgium), represented by Paul-Emmanuel Ghislain, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decisions by the Commission not to increase the number of DG priority points awarded to the applicant in the context of the 2003 appraisal and not to promote the applicant to Grade A5 during the 2003 promotions exercise, together with the appointing authority's decision replying to the applicant's objections (R/673/03 and R/716/03); |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
This action follows on from that in Case T-272/04 which challenged the tacit decision rejecting the complaints submitted by the same applicant. Since the appointing authority finally adopted express rejection decisions, it is specifically those decisions whose annulment is sought in the present case.
In support of his claims, the applicant essentially maintains that the decisions at issue constitute a disguised sanction imposed on the applicant, owing to his secondment in the interests of the service to the Court of Justice, and did not take appropriate account of his merits.
The pleas raised in the application are based on infringement of the rules governing the appraisal and promotion of officials, the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, and on an allegation of a misuse of powers.