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 C2005/171/46

    Case T- 164/05: Action brought on on 13 April 2005 by Johan de Geest against Council of the European Union

    OB C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 28–28 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.7.2005   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 171/28

    Action brought on on 13 April 2005 by Johan de Geest against Council of the European Union

    (Case T- 164/05)

    (2005/C 171/46)

    Language of the case: French

    An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 April 2005 by Johan de Geest, residing in Rhode-St-Genèse (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision to appoint him as an official of the European Communities in that it fixes his grade on recruitment at A*6, pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

    —

    order the Council to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The applicant was a candidate in internal competition CONSEIL/A/273 held to fill a post as doctor in grade A6 or A7. The applicant was successful in the competition and was appointed in grade A*6. The applicant contests that decision, claiming that he should have been appointed in grade A*8, A*9 or A*10, which, under the new system, correspond to the former grades referred to in the notification of competition.

    In support of his action, the applicant claims that the Council fixed his grade on recruitment without having regard to the notification of vacancy and, accordingly, breached Articles 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations and also the principle of legitimate expectations. In that context, the applicant also claims that article 12 of Article XIII to the Staff Regulations, which the Council applied when fixing his grade on recruitment, unlawfully alters the framework of legality of the recruitment procedure.

    Top