EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/179/33
Case T-175/04: Action brought on 7 May 2004 by Mr Donal Gordon against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-175/04: Action brought on 7 May 2004 by Mr Donal Gordon against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-175/04: Action brought on 7 May 2004 by Mr Donal Gordon against the Commission of the European Communities
ĠU C 179, 10.7.2004, p. 17–17
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.7.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 179/17 |
Action brought on 7 May 2004 by Mr Donal Gordon against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-175/04)
(2004/C 179/33)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 May 2004 by Mr Donal Gordon, Brussels, Belguim, represented by Mr M. Byrne, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the appointing authority's Decision in response to the applicant's complaint R/402/03; |
|
— |
declare the Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 on general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff regulations or the relevant current measure invalid to the extent that reports are finalised before all appeals of the same grade in the same unit have been processed; |
|
— |
declare Administrative Notice 99-2002 of 3 December 2002 or the relevant current measure invalid to the extent that it sets a target average mark; |
|
— |
award the applicant damages in compensation for the material damage to his career prospects, to his morale and to his health; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present action. |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
In support of his conclusions, the applicant submits in the first place a breach of an essential procedural requirement and the rights of defence in that the countersigning officer failed to have a dialogue with the official within 5 working days as required by Article 7(5) of Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 on general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.
The applicant also invokes a manifest error of assessment by the countersigning officer in signing the applicant's career development report, having regard to the anomalous and contradictory data available to him. The applicant furthermore invokes a misuse of powers because of his failing to take any steps to correct such manifest error of assessment.
The applicant finally invokes a breach of an essential procedural requirement and the rights of defence in that the internal appeal system set in place by Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 was rendered inherently ineffective by the fact that by the time an appeal was launched, the other reports in the same unit, to which the appealed report was linked by an average mark, had been irrevocably validated, and by the limited number of points set aside to cover appeals.