Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2005/106/67

Case T-66/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Jörn Sack against the Commission of the European Communities

OB C 106, 30.4.2005, p. 32–32 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.4.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/32

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Jörn Sack against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-66/05)

(2005/C 106/67)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17.02.2005 by Jörn Sack, Tervuren (Belgium), represented by U. Lehmann-Brauns and D. Mahlo, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the decisions on the assessment of his remuneration from May 2004 to February 2005 due to a breach of the principle of equal treatment and reassess his remuneration for those months with due regard to that principle;

—

set aside the negative decision of the Director-General of the Directorate General for Administration of 26.11.2004 concerning the applicant's complaint of 21.6.2004;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was an official in the Legal Service of the Commission in grade A*14. Due to his special function within the Legal Service he applied for recognition as a middle manager with consequent entitlement to the increments prescribed in Articles 44(2) and 46 of the Staff Regulations and in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII thereto.

In support of his claim, the applicant argues that the decision rejecting his complaint was formally deficient in that it was drawn up exclusively in English, although the applicant's first complaint was written in German and that it infringed Article 253 EC by not addressing the wholly individual nature of his complaint.

The applicant further complains of an infringement of the general principle of equal treatment in the assessment and grading of his job. The applicant argues that his duties and responsibilities were on a par with those entrusted to the Head of Unit. The fact that his successor was granted higher-grade pay constituted a further infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

Top