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 C2005/271/40

    Case T-305/05: Action brought on 1 August 2005 — Balabanis and Le Dour v Commission

    OJ C 271, 29.10.2005, p. 20–20 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    29.10.2005   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 271/20

    Action brought on 1 August 2005 — Balabanis and Le Dour v Commission

    (Case T-305/05)

    (2005/C 271/40)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant(s): Panagiotis Balabanis (Brussels, Belgium), Olivier Le Dour (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Martin, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

    Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

    Form of order sought

    The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

    —

    annul the Commission's decision not to take account of the applicants' merits for the 2004 promotion exercise and the decisions not to promote them to a higher grade in their category;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In this case the applicants, who were appointed probationary officials on 16 March 2002 and who, in accordance with the new wording of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, completed the minimum of two years in their grade as from 16 March 2004, thus contest the Appointing Authority's refusal to consider them as eligible for the 2004 promotion exercise and to promote them to a higher grade in their category for the same exercise.

    In support of their claims the applicants assert that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations has been infringed. In accordance with that new provision the probationary period must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the minimum seniority in grade.

    Top