This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/045/57
Case T-459/04: Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-459/04: Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-459/04: Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira against the Commission of the European Communities
OJ C 45, 19.2.2005, p. 25–26
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.2.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 45/25 |
Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-459/04)
(2005/C 45/57)
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 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the Commission of 18 March 2004 classifying the applicant in Grade A5, step 3; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the difference between the salary corresponding to the applicant's classification in Grade A5, step 3, and the salary corresponding to classification in a higher grade, with default interest of 5.75 % per annum from 1 December 2002; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant, a Commission official, applied for a post at A5/A4 level in the field of taxation and customs. He was selected and appointed at Grade A5, step 3. The applicant contests that decision, arguing that he is a particularly highly qualified candidate with exceptional qualifications and that he should, therefore, have been appointed at Grade A4. On that basis, the applicant raises a plea of manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations.
The applicant also raises a plea of breach of the right to a fair hearing alleging that the defendant did not give him an opportunity to present his point of view before the contested decision was taken.
Finally, the applicant relies on a plea of breach of Article 253 EC, pointing out that no reasons were stated for the contested decision, or in the alternative, that inadequate reasons were stated.