This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/296/59
Case T-338/05: Action brought on 9 September 2005 — Raymond Claudel v Court of Auditors
Case T-338/05: Action brought on 9 September 2005 — Raymond Claudel v Court of Auditors
Case T-338/05: Action brought on 9 September 2005 — Raymond Claudel v Court of Auditors
OJ C 296, 26.11.2005, p. 27–27
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.11.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 296/27 |
Action brought on 9 September 2005 — Raymond Claudel v Court of Auditors
(Case T-338/05)
(2005/C 296/59)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant(s): Raymond Claudel (Merl, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)
Defendant(s): Court of Auditors
Form of order sought
The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
|
— |
annul paragraph 17(d) of the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 11 November 2004 (DEC 183/04/DEF), which does not acknowledge that the applicant carried out the duties of Head of Unit on 30 April 2004; |
|
— |
award damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm evaluated on an equitable basis at EUR 5 000, subject to an increase during the proceedings; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs in any event. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official at the Court of Auditors in charge of the external relations service. By his action, he disputes the decision of the Court of Auditors, in so far as it does not recognise that he exercises the duties of Head of Unit and, accordingly, does not recognise that he is entitled to the bonus provided for in Article 44 of the Staff Regulations, as amended after 1 May 2004.
In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 7 of Annex XIII thereto, and also a manifest error of assessment in the description of his post. He also claims that there has been a breach of the duty to state reasons, of the principle of equal t4eatment, of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and also of the principle of sound administration. The applicant also claims damages for the harm which he alleges to have been sustained.