Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2005/193/39

    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2005 in Case T-177/03 Andreas Strohm v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Refusal of promotion to Grade A4 — Consideration of comparative merits — Duty to state grounds — Additional statement of grounds — Action for annulment and compensation — Admissibility)

    OB C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 24–25 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.8.2005   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 193/24


    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

    of 2 June 2005

    in Case T-177/03 Andreas Strohm v Commission of the European Communities (1)

    (Officials - Refusal of promotion to Grade A4 - Consideration of comparative merits - Duty to state grounds - Additional statement of grounds - Action for annulment and compensation - Admissibility)

    (2005/C 193/39)

    Language of the case: German

    In Case T-177/03: Andreas Strohm, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by C. Illig, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision dated 14 August 2002, not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 in the 2002 procedure, and for compensation — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it:

    1.

    Annuls the Commission's decision, dated 14 August 2002, not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 in the 2002 promotion procedure;

    2.

    Dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it seeks compensation for the applicant;

    3.

    Orders the defendant to bear all the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 200 of 20.8.2003.


    Top