You are on page 1of 1

C 112/48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.5.


Pleas in law and main arguments assessor which were favorable to the applicant were
The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of his

— Breach of the obligation as to circumspection, of the

principles of proper administraion and sound manage-
ment and of the principles of independence and impar- Removal from the register of Case T-100/99 (1)
tiality. It is claimed that the contested staff report was
drawn up by a head of unit whose appointment was (2003/C 112/89)
challenged by the applicant before the Court of First
Instance. The applicant submits that in those circum- (Language of the Case: Dutch)
stances that assessor should have disqualified himself.

— Breach of the obligation to state reasons, of rights of

defence and of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and By order of 25 February 2003 the President of the Second
manifest error of assessment. In this plea the applicant Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
claims that the contested report was drawn up on the
basis of statements by unidentified persons who did not T-100/99: Campina Melkunie B.V. v Commission of the
sign it, that the assessors did not consult the persons European Communities.
proposed by the applicant and that the second assessor
gave no explanation as to why assessments by the first (1 ) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.