This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/094/128
Action brought on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena against European Air Safety Agency
Action brought on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena against European Air Safety Agency
Action brought on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena against European Air Safety Agency
Ú. v. EÚ C 94, 17.4.2004, p. 45–46
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
|
17.4.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 94/45 |
Action brought on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena against European Air Safety Agency
(Case T-30/04)
(2004/C 94/128)
Language of the Case: French
An action against the European Air Safety Agency was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2004 by João Andrade Sena, residing at Rhode St Genèse (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the European Air Safety Agency's (EASA) decisions of 11 July 2003 to appoint another person to the post of executive director and to reject the applicant's candidature for that post; |
|
— |
Order the payment of damages as compensation for the applicant's loss in the sum of EUR 2, the amount fixed on an equitable basis; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests the European Air Safety Agency's (EASA) decision to reject his candidature for the post of Executive Director and to appoint another person to that post.
He points out the fact that the information which he and his lawyers have obtained following their request is fragmentary and has not allowed the applicant a clear and transparent view of the procedure followed.
In support of his claims, he asserts;
|
— |
Breach of the duty to state reasons and of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials and of the principle of sound administration; |
|
— |
Lack of information, from which it can be objectively and legitimately assumed that the principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-discrimination have not been observed, and breach of the procedural rules and the vacancy notice; |
|
— |
Disregard of the interests of the service and breach of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, in so far as it is clear from a comparison of the merits of the person appointed, based on the brief biography transmitted by the Commission, and of those of the applicant, that the applicant's merits are manifestly superior. |