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 C2005/057/49

    Case T-472/04: Action brought on 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

    OJ C 57, 5.3.2005, p. 29–29 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.3.2005   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 57/29

    Action brought on 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-472/04)

    (2005/C 57/49)

    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 20 November 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas, residing in Volos (Greece), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2003 in so far as it failed to include the applicant's name in the list of officials put forward for promotion in 1999, or on the list of officials adjudged to be the most deserving of promotion to grade A4 in the 1998 and 1999 promotion rounds, or on the list of officials promoted to grade A4 in those promotion rounds;

    —

    annul all connected and/or subsequent decisions;

    —

    in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision of the Commission of 5 August 2004, rejecting the applicant's complaint;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of its action, the applicant alleges procedural irregularities, an infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations, an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, infringements of the principle of equal treatment and sound administration and, lastly, a manifest error of assessment.

    Top