You are on page 1of 2

16.10.

1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 299/27

Action brought on 14 July 1999 by Michael Rupp against — the fact that, having regard to those irregularities, the
the Commission of the European Communities defendant refused to permit inspection of the results of the
tests already concluded prevented the applicant from
(Case T-169/99) pursuing his legal interests, and consequently constitutes
an unlawful obstacle placed in the way of a citizen of the
Union.
(1999/C 299/38)

(1) OJ C 97 A of 31.3.1998.
(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-


ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 July 1999 by Michael Rupp,
residing in Brussels, represented by Silke Wöhlert, Rechtsan-
wältin, of 11B In der Aue, Heidelberg (Germany).

The applicant claims that the Court should: Action brought on 10 August 1999 by Georgios Karavelis
against the European Parliament
I. annul the defendant’s decision not to admit the applicant
to the (competition) test held on 16 July 1999;
(Case T-182/99)
II. order that the applicant’s representative be given the
opportunity to inspect the competition file relating to the (1999/C 299/39)
applicant, in order to make sure that the test results are
correct;

III. order the defendant to invite the applicant to take part in (Language of the case: Greek)
the main test held in Brussels on 16 July 1999;
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
IV. order the defendant to pay the costs. the Court of First Instance on 10 August 1999 by Georgios
Caravelis, represented by Professor Haris Tagaras, of the
Athens Bar.
Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:


The applicant, who is currently employed in a temporary
position in Directorate-General IA of the European Com-
mission, took part in open competition No COM/A/10/98 (1), — hold the application admissible;
which was organised by the Commission. On the strength of
his good results, he was admitted to that competition, in which — annul the contested acts in so far as the applicant’s name
he was awarded the requisite minimum number of marks. is not included on the 1998 list of those to be promoted
However, by letter from the defendant dated 25 June 1999 he to Grade A 4 or, in the alternative, order the defendant
was informed that his complaint concerning the decision not to pay compensation for non-material damage of BEF
to admit him to the main test in the competition had been 100 000;
rejected. Only after the applicant had insisted on being given
an answer was he sent a definitive refusal to admit him to the
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.
test; this failed to take into account the imminence of the
subsequent test, since he did not receive an answer until 8 July
1999.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims, as a matter of law, that the competition
procedure was vitiated by manifest defects, which give rise to The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, chal-
an imperative requirement that he be admitted to the main lenges the legality of the 1998 procedure for promotion to
test: Grade A 4. In his view that procedure was vitiated by the
following defects:
— it was only during one of the breaks that a typographical
error in the Swedish-language part of the test was disco-
vered. The candidates were given the opportunity of 1. The Promotions Committee downgraded the staff reports
re-sitting that test following the conclusion of the entire of those eligible for promotion, attaching special weight to
test procedure. It was therefore possible for the candidates the recommendations of the Directorates-General.
concerned to obtain the answers to the corresponding
questions from other candidates during the breaks, before 2. Those recommendations took into account only up to
sitting the test in question. This seriously-prejudiced the 20 % of those eligible for promotion in each Directorate-
applicant, and thus constitutes a breach of the principle of General. The cases of the other officials eligible for
equal treatment for all candidates; promotion were not examined.
C 299/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16.10.1999

3. In evaluating those eligible for promotion, the Promotions Diekmeier and Others v Council of the European Union and
Committee did not follow the criteria laid down in the Commission of the European Communities.
promotion guidelines, but relied on other criteria. Those
criteria also contravened the recommendations formulated
(1) OJ C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 159 of 24.6.1995.
by the Directorate-General to which the applicant belongs.

Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93 Removal from the register of Case T-2/98 (1)
and Others (1)
(1999/C 299/42)
(1999/C 299/40)
(Language of the case: Dutch)
(Language of the cases: German)
By order of 1 February 1999 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
By order of 21 May 1999, the President of the Fourth Chamber,
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Case T-2/98: Petra Van Eynde-Neutens v Commission of the
European Communities has ordered the removal of Case
T-252/94 from the list of cases in Joined Cases T-85/93 and European Communities.
Others: Helmut Bösl v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities. (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.

(1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.

Removal from the register of Case T-168/98 (1)

Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94 (1999/C 299/43)
and Others (1)
(Language of the case: French)
(1999/C 299/41)
By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the First
(Language of the cases: German) Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-168/98: Anastasios Bisopoulos v Commission of the
By order of 21 May 1999, the President of the Fourth Chamber
European Communities.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal of Cases T-16/95 and T-100/95 from
the list of cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.