Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

C 7/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 1.


The applicant claims that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:

Ð order the Office to produce the working papers of the Ð rule that Article 8 of Regulation (EEC/Euratom,
Selection Board in competition AT/C, in particular the ECSC) No 3947/92, adopted by the Council on
assessment forms completed by the members of the 21 December 1992, is applicable to the applicant,
Selection Board and the examiners after the interview
on 27 September 1996, together with the Board's final
report, Ð consequently, annul the Commission's decision of
21 October 1996 rejecting the applicant's request to
be regraded pursuant to Article 32 (3) of the Staff
Ð annul the Selection Board's decision not to include the Regulations,
applicant on the list of suitable candidates drawn up
in the context of that competition,
Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
adopted by the Commission on 2 April 1997 expressly
Ð order the Office to pay all the costs.
rejecting the applicant's complaint,

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant, a grade C 3 official at the Commission,
challenges the Office's decision of 30 October 1996 not to Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
include her on the list of suitable members of the
temporary staff in category C for performing office and The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff
administrative duties, in the context of competition AT/C. classified in grade A 6, step 4, was appointed an official of
In that respect, she puts forward the following pleas in the Court of Auditors on 1 July 1982 and classified in
law: grade A 6, step 3, in accordance with the rules applying at
that time. On 1 September 1984 he was transferred to the
Ð first plea: insufficient reasons are given for the Commission.
In consequence of the judgment delivered by the Court of
Ð second plea: the competition procedure is vitiated by First Instance on 6 March 1996 in Case T-93/94 Becker v.
the fact that the member of the Selection Board Court of Auditors (1), he requested the appointing
designated by the Staff Committee did not have the authority of the Commission to review his classification in
right to vote, step. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court of First Instance
ruled that Article 32 of the Staff Regulations of officials,
Ð third plea: the decision was adopted in breach of the as amended by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC)
principle of non-discrimination, No 3947/92 of 21 December 1992 (2), should also apply
to members of the temporary staff appointed as officials
Ð fourth plea: the Selection Board committed a manifest prior to the entry into force of that amendment. The
error of assessment by refusing to acknowledge that Commission rejected the request on the ground that it was
the applicant is capable of performing the tasks out of time, maintaining that it should have been
concerned (category C office and administrative submitted within three months of publication of the
duties), even though she has been performing similar amendment to the Staff Regulations.
tasks in the European Community institutions for
more than 10 years. The applicant considers that the contested decision
disregards Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations,
inasmuch as that provision lays down no time limit for the
submission of a request. He also maintains that the fact
that he was appointed an official prior to the entry into
force of the amendment to Article 32 of the Staff
Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Louis Koopman against Regulations cannot preclude the application of the new
the Commission of the European Communities provision in his favour, since any other interpretation
would be contrary to the principle of equal treatment, as
(Case T-202/97)
the Court of First Instance declared in the aforesaid
(98/C 7/55) judgment. Lastly, he maintains that, by failing to apply the
amended provision automatically to him, and by then
(Language of the case: French) claiming that his request for its application in his favour
was out of time, the Commission completely failed to
An action against the Commission of the European fulfil its duty to have regard for the welfare and interests
Communities was brought before the Court of First of officials.
Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1997 by
Louis Koopman, residing at Keerbergen (Belgium), (1) [1996] ECR-SC 91.
represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an (2) OJ L 404, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.