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 C2005/281/43

    Case T-302/05: Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Torijano Montero v Council

    SL C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 23–23 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    12.11.2005   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 281/23

    Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Torijano Montero v Council

    (Case T-302/05)

    (2005/C 281/43)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant(s): Javier Torijano Montero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, lawyer, A. Jaume, lawyer)

    Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought

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

    Principally:

    —

    annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's complaint together with the decision of appointment adopted by the appointing authority on 20 October 2004 in so far as it determined his grade pursuant to Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

    —

    advise the appointing authority of the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions, in particular the regrading of the applicant in grade A*8 with retroactive effect as from 16 October 2004, the date on which the decision of appointment of 20 October 2004 took effect;

    In the alternative:

    —

    order the Commission to compensate the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been graded, at least in grade A*8, as from 16 October 2004, the date on which the decision of appointment of 20 October 2004 took effect.

    In any event:

    —

    order the defendant to pay all the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are, for the most part, identical to those relied on in Case T-207/05 Schulze v Commission.  (1) The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the rules concerning the correspondence between types of posts, on the one hand, and categories and grades, on the other.

    (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 36.

    Top