You are on page 1of 1

C 278/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5.9.

98

abilities into consideration for the 1997 promotion period, Ð request the defendant to produce the minutes of the
with the result that it was unable, to the detriment proceedings of the selection board and the reasoned
of the applicant's interests, to carry out any valid report of that Selection Board,
examination of the comparative merits of each of the
candidates for promotion. According to the applicant, it Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
follows that the contested decisions were adopted in
breach of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations of Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
officials and of the principle of non-discrimination.
In support of her claim, the applicant pleads, first, breach
of the principle of non-discrimination; she maintains that
she was obliged to sit the compulsory written tests under
conditions and circumstances which were different from
Action brought on 6 July 1998 by Christina Papadeas those applying to the other candidates, solely on account
against the Committee of the Regions of the fact that she chose Greek, her mother tongue, as the
language of the competition.
(Case T-102/98)
(98/C 278/86) She also considers that the Selection Board disregarded the
(Language of the case: French) terms of the notice of competition, in that, first, it failed
in its letter to comply with that notice as regards the
An action against the Committee of the Regions was procedure for holding the first test and, second, it decided
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European not to admit her to the oral test although the notice did
Communities on 6 July 1998 by Christina Papadeas, not provide for that possibility.
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden
and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for The applicant further maintains that the administration
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson committed a breach of the principles of proper
sarl, 30 rue de Cessange. management and sound administration and failed to fultil
its duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
The applicant claims that the Court should: officials, inasmuch as it omitted to ensure that the work
Ð declare the present application admissible and well apparatus which was made available to the candidates
founded, was functioning properly at the time of the tests
irrespective of the language chosen by each candidate.
Ð annul the decision of the Selection Board in internal
competition No C/01/97 not to admit the applicant to Lastly, she considers that the fact that participation in the
the oral test, which decision was notified to the recruitment procedure initiated by the notice of internal
applicant by letter from the chairman of the Selection competition at issue was open not only to staff members
Board of 8 December 1997, and, in so far as may be of the Committee of the Regions but also to staff members
necessary, annul the decision contained in a letter sent of the Economic and Social Committee constitutes an
by the appointing authority to the applicant's legal infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations of
advisers on 8 April 1998, officials.