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 C2006/010/48

Case T-381/05: Action brought on 10 October 2005 — Di Bucci v Commission

JO C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 24–24 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/24

Action brought on 10 October 2005 — Di Bucci v Commission

(Case T-381/05)

(2006/C 10/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the formal proposal of the Director General of the Legal Service to award him only four Directorate-General priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise, which was confirmed and made definitive by the Director General's decision rejecting his internal appeal;

—

annul the decision of the Director General of Personnel and Administration not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for work done in the interests of the institution’ special priority points (‘PPCPs’) for the 2004 promotion exercise;

—

annul the decisions of the Director General of Personnel and Administration to award him a total of 20 points for the 2004 promotion exercise and a total of 40 points for the purpose of promotion to Grade A4 during that exercise; the list of officials granted PPCPs; the merit list of Grade A5 officials for the 2004 promotion exercise after Promotion Committees; the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 in the 2004 promotion exercise and, in any event, the decision not to enter his name in those lists;

—

annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant advances pleas similar to those advanced in Case T-311/04 (1).

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 44

Top