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 C2005/193/52

Case T-197/05: Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Asa Sundholm against the Commission of the European Communities

OB C 193, 6.8.2005 , p. 31–31 (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 193/31

Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Asa Sundholm against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-197/05)

(2005/C 193/52)

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 9 May 2005 by Asa Sundholm, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin Membiela, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

annul the decision of the Commission establishing the applicant's Career Development Report for 2003;

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claim, the applicant points out, firstly, the existence of manifest inconsistencies between the points and the comments of the reporting officer, which constitute a breach of the obligation to give reasons.

The applicant further submits that there is a manifest error of assessment to the extent that she is criticised for having asked her hierarchical superiors for details of the way in which she should complete her work, without their having shown that those instructions had been previously laid down in such a way that they did not require clarification.

Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of her defence rights, submitting that the appeal assessor based his decision on new factors without affording her the opportunity of stating her point of view.

Top