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 C2004/284/43

    Case T-357/04: Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Marguerite Chetcuti against Commission of the European Communities

    IO C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 21–22 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    20.11.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 284/21

    Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Marguerite Chetcuti against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-357/04)

    (2004/C 284/43)

    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 31 August 2004 by Marguerite Chetcuti, residing in Zejtun (Malta), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Declare unlawful point III of competition notice COM/P A/04 of 6 April 2004;

    —

    Annul the decision of 22 June 2004 of the competition selection board rejecting her candidature in reliance on that provision;

    —

    Annul the subsequent acts of the competition procedure, which are unlawful as a consequence of the unlawfulness of the competition notice and of the contested decision, in particular:

    —

    the list adopted by the selection board of candidates meeting the conditions fixed by the notice of competition,

    —

    the Commission decision determining on that basis the number of posts to be filled,

    —

    the list of suitable candidates adopted by the selection board on completion of its task, and

    —

    the appointment decisions taken by the appointing authority on that basis;

    —

    Order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments:

    In support of the form of order sought, the applicant claims that the notice of competition infringes Articles 4, 27 and 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations and also the principle of equal treatment in that excludes members of the auxiliary staff from the competition. She also claims that the notice infringes Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations and is contrary to the interests of the service and the principle of equal treatment on the ground that it requires a period of service as an official, temporary servant or member of the temporary staff and thus excludes local staff, like the applicant.

    Top