30.4.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/36

Action brought on 14 February 2005 by Alejandro Martín Magone against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-73/05)

(2005/C 106/73)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance on 14 February 2005 by Alejandro Martín Magone, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

—	annul the career development report drawn up in respect of the applicant's performance (ref. 2700, ECHO) between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, including the appeal procedures and other decisions relating thereto;

—	annul the decision of the appointing authority of 28 October 2004, received on 12 November 2004, rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials on 26 July 2004;

—	hold that the applicant has been the victim of mental and professional harassment;

—	award the applicant compensation for material and non-material damage assessed on an ex aequo et bono basis as EUR 39 169,67, or such greater sum as may be awarded in the proceedings;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first, a manifest error of assessment, defective procedure and abuse of power, in that the very negative and damaging marks awarded to him were based on matters that did not concern him during the period concerned.

Next, the applicant alleges that no reasons were given for the contested measure and claims that for years he was subjected to mental harassment by his superiors. According to the applicant, that was apparent from the remarks contained in the contested report.

Finally, the applicant claims that his special situation exposed him to serious psychological problems, a fact which was not taken into account by the defendant when the duties assigned to him were changed. Therefore, the defendant failed in its duty of care and infringed the principle of sound administration.