Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) 27 June 1991

In Case T-156/89,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. P. Briët, President of the Chamber, H. Kirschner and J. Biancarelli, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 December 1990,

gives the following

Judgment

A — Facts

B — Procedure

C — The applicant's claims for annulment

1. The claim for the annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's application for the post referred to by Vacancy Notice No CJ 41/88

(a) The admissibility of the claim

(aa) The course of the pre-litigation procedure

(bb) The interest of the applicant in bringing an action

(b) The pleas in law put forward in support of the claim

(aa) The plea based on infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and on breach of the principle of equal treatment

(bb) The plea based on infringement of Article 45(2) of the Staff Regulations

(cc) The plea based on breach of the principle of proper administration and on infringement of Articles 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations

(dd) The plea based on breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

2. The claim for the annulment of all the steps in Competition No CJ 32/88

(a) The admissibility of the claim

(b) The pleas put forward in support of the claim

(aa) The inoperative pleas in law

(bb) The plea relati_g to the composition of the Selection Board in Competition No CJ 32/88

(cc) The two pleas based on the allegation that the Selection Board's choice of texts for the tests in Competition No CJ 32/88 constituting a misuse of powers and a serious error

(dd) The statement of the reasons upon which the decision is based

3. The claim for the annulment of the appointments made on the basis of Competition No CI 32/88

D — The applicant's claims for damages

1. The claim for an order requiring the appointing authority to admit that it was inappropriate to make the applicant take part in Competition No CJ 32/88

(a) Admissibility

(b) Substance

2. The claim for relief in the form of the applicant's appointment as a reviser with retroactive effect from 1 September 1988

3. The claim for payment of the difference in salary

(a) Admissibility

(b) Substance

4. The claim for payment of the token sum of ECU 1 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant

(a) Admissibility

(b) Substance

E — Costs

1 Language of the case: Spanish.