This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Official Journal of the European Communities
— Regardless of the decision given on the claim made in the foregoing paragraph, require the European Commission to pay compensation to Miguel Angel Martın de Pablos, in ´ accordance with Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, of EUR 12 000 by way of damages for the unjustified delay of 10 months; — Order the defendant to pay the costs. Contentions and principal arguments The applicant, a candidate in open competition COM/A/98 organised by the Commission to draw up a reserve list of assistant administrators, objects to the decision of the selection board not admitting him to the oral tests in that competition because he was not one of the 160 best candidates in the written tests. The applicant considers that the decision in question is vitiated by the lack of a statement of reasons and misuse of powers, in that it does not disclose either the composition of the selection board or the identity of candidates who passed and those who failed. The applicant contends that the fact that the marks for the written tests were notified 10 months later than the date indicated in the timetable included in the convening notice for the competition is detrimental to him, since it prevented him from holding a full-time post in the meantime and receiving the corresponding remuneration.
— order the Court of Justice to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments By the present action, the applicant seeks a declaration that the Court of Justice failed to fulfil its obligation to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court of Justice (1). That judgment annulled the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the applicant’s request that her name be included in the list of persons who expressed an interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their service, as provided for by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 of 17 November 1995 introducing special measures to terminate the service of officials of the European Communities as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (2). According to the applicant, the Court of Justice is obliged to act, not only pursuant to Article 233 of the Treaty, but also pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations (duty to give assistance). In her view, she could have brought proceedings before the Community judicature in respect of the Council’s decision not to adopt the proposal for a regulation providing for the Court to release staff, or seeking the inclusion of a heading in the Court budget to cover the expense involved in releasing staff.
(1)  ECR-SC-IA-257 and ECR-SC-II-1579. (2) OJ No L 280 of 23.11.1995, p. 1.
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Christiane Chvatal against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-115/00) (2000/C 211/46) (Language of the case: French)
´ ´ Action brought on 5 May 2000 by Joaquın Lopez Madruga against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-125/00) (2000/C 211/47) (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Christiane Chvatal, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar. The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 26 January 2000, notified on 2 February 2000, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; — order the Court of Justice to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of the material damage suffered, as defined in paragraph 3 of the application;
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 2000 by Joaquın Lopez ´ ´ Madruga, residing in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramon ´ Iturriagagoitia. The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul in part the decision taken at first tacitly and, subsequently, by failing to reply to his request, in so far as it does not grant the applicant the right to transfer in full 35 % of his net monthly emoluments to his bank account in the United Kingdom in order to meet university education costs incurred by his sons Diego and Javier;