C 211/22 EN 22.7.2000Official Journal of the European Communities— Regardless of the decision given on the claim made in the — order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.foregoing paragraph, require the European Commission topay compensation to Miguel Angel Martı´n de Pablos, inaccordance with Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the
Pleas in law and main arguments
European Community, of EUR 12 000 by way of damagesfor the unjustified delay of 10 months;By the present action, the applicant seeks a declaration thatthe Court of Justice failed to fulfil its obligation to comply — Order the defendant to pay the costs.with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30September 1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Courtof Justice(
). That judgment annulled the decision of the Court
Contentions and principal arguments
of Justice rejecting the applicant’s request that her name beincluded in the list of persons who expressed an interest inbeing the subject of a decision terminating their service, asThe applicant, a candidate in open competition COM/A/98provided for by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) Noorganised by the Commission to draw up a reserve list of 2688/95 of 17 November 1995 introducing special measuresassistant administrators, objects to the decision of the selectionto terminate the service of officials of the European Communi-board not admitting him to the oral tests in that competitionties as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland andbecause he was not one of the 160 best candidates in theSweden(
).written tests. The applicant considers that the decision inquestion is vitiated by the lack of a statement of reasons andmisuse of powers, in that it does not disclose either theAccording to the applicant, the Court of Justice is obliged tocompositionoftheselectionboardortheidentityofcandidatesact, not only pursuant to Article 233 of the Treaty, but alsowho passed and those who failed.pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations (duty to giveassistance). In her view, she could have brought proceedingsbefore the Community judicature in respect of the Council’sThe applicant contends that the fact that the marks for thedecision not to adopt the proposal for a regulation providingwritten tests were notified 10 months later than the datefor the Court to release staff, or seeking the inclusion of aindicated in the timetable included in the convening notice forheading in the Court budget to cover the expense involved inthe competition is detrimental to him, since it prevented himreleasing staff.from holding a full-time post in the meantime and receivingthe corresponding remuneration.
)  ECR-SC-IA-257 and ECR-SC-II-1579.(
) OJ No L 280 of 23.11.1995, p. 1.
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Christiane Chvatalagainst the Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesActionbroughton5May2000byJoaquı´nLo´pezMadrugaagainst Commission of the European Communities(Case T-115/00)(Case T-125/00)
(2000/C 211/46)(2000/C 211/47)
(Language of the case: French)(Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Court of Justice of the EuropeanCommunities was brought before the Court of First InstanceAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-of the European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Christianeties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theChvatal, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang,European Communities on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı´n Lo´pezof the Luxembourg Bar.Madruga, residing in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramo´nIturriagagoitia.The applicant claims that the Court should: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 appli-— annul in part the decision taken at first tacitly and,cant’s complaint;subsequently, by failing to reply to his request, in so far asit does not grant the applicant the right to transfer in full35 % of his net monthly emoluments to his bank account— order the Court of Justice to pay compensation to theapplicant in respect of the material damage suffered, as in the United Kingdom in order to meet university education costs incurred by his sons Diego and Javier;defined in paragraph 3 of the application;