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 C2004/168/13

    Case T-139/04: Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens against the Commission of the European Communities

    OJ C 168, 26.6.2004, p. 7–8 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    26.6.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 168/7

    Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-139/04)

    (2004/C 168/13)

    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 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens, resident in Brussels, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2003 inasmuch as it:

    —

    did not classify the applicant in Grade A6, step 3, at the time of his recruitment;

    —

    did not reconstitute the career in terms of the applicant's grade by bringing forward the date of his promotions to Grades A5 and A4;

    —

    limited the date of effect of the reclassification decision in regard to its pecuniary effects to 5 October 1995;

    —

    annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 January 2004, served on the applicant on 30 January 2004, rejecting his complaint R/521/03;

    —

    order the defendant to pay compensation provisionally set in the amount of EUR 125 000 in the event that, owing to impossibility, it is unable to reconstitute the applicant's career in terms of his grade;

    —

    order the defendant to pay all the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In these proceedings, the applicant, who, on his recruitment in October 1985, was classified in Grade A7, step 3, challenges the decision of the appointing authority refusing to revise that classification, placing him in Grade A6, step 2, and not in Grade A6, step 3, refusing to reconstitute his career and limiting the date of effect of the decision on his reclassification to 5 October 1995.

    The pleas relied on by the applicant in support of his claims are the same as those relied on by the applicant in Case T-125/04 Rousseaux v Commission.

    Top