EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/273/57
Case T-272/04: Action brought on 6 July 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-272/04: Action brought on 6 July 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-272/04: Action brought on 6 July 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
OJ C 273, 6.11.2004, p. 29–29
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.11.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 273/29 |
Action brought on 6 July 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-272/04)
(2004/C 273/57)
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 6 July 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne, resident in Etterbeek (Belgium), represented by Paul-Emmanuel Ghislain, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Commission's decision not to increase the number of DG propriety points awarded to the applicant in the evaluation for the 2003 appraisal year and not to promote the applicant to grade A5 in the 2003 promotions exercise; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant, an official with the Commission, intends to establish that the decision not to promote him is illegal, first, because it is, in his view, punishment for his having been seconded to the Court of Justice from 1996 to 2003 and, second, because it did not take appropriate account of his merits.
The applicant alleges the following in support of his action:
|
— |
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, infringement of Article 2(1) of the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and misuse of powers; |
|
— |
infringement of Article 6(3)(ii) and (4)(a) of the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principle of proportionality; |
|
— |
infringement of Article 12(3)(a) of the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; |
|
— |
infringement of Article 2(1)(2) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations; |
|
— |
infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. |
In the alternative, the applicant alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of Article 13 of the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.