16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/27

(Case T-447/17)

(2017/C 347/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

—Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

—Consequently,

—Annul the decision of 31 January 2017 communicated to the staff on 1 February 2017 to appoint Mr [X] Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board, annul the decision not to appoint the applicant to that post and annul the decision not to have permitted the applicant to apply for that post;

—Annul the decision rejecting the special appeal dated 16 May 2017 received on 23 May 2017;

—Order the payment of compensation for the applicant’s material loss consisting of the loss of an opportunity to be appointed to the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board;

—Order the payment of compensation for the applicant’s non-pecuniary loss assessed ex aequo et bono at a symbolic EUR 1;

—Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of publicity, transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 20.2 of the Rules of Procedure, 8(a) of the Conditions of Employment and 1a.1.1 of the Staff Rules and of Articles 2 TEU and 3 TEU and 20 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that regard, the application is of the view that he did not have the opportunity of submitting his application for the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board while Mr [X] did have that opportunity.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1a.7 of the Staff Rules, in that such a legal basis allows only the appointment of a candidate to a post of Counsel to the Executive Board and not that of a candidate to the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board which adds the corresponding responsibilities which equate to a level higher than that of a Counsel.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a failure to consult the Staff Committee on the creation of a new post and on the modification of the post of Coordinator, which was done in breach of Articles 48 and 49 of the Conditions of Employment and the Protocol of Agreement.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration as a result of the lack of a job description for the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board.