# C_2006178EN.01001901.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/19

---

Appeal brought on 9 May 2006 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/04: Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

(Case C-213/06 P)

(2006/C 178/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers and K. Niafas, agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Georgios Karatzoglou

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgement of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/04 (Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) ) in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgement of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/04 (Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) ) in full;

| — | Give judgement itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Give judgement itself;

| — | Dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 26 February 2004 terminating the contract of the applicant at first instance as a member of the termporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 26 February 2004 terminating the contract of the applicant at first instance as a member of the termporary staff;

| — | Order the applicant at first instance and respondent on appeal to pay the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant at first instance and respondent on appeal to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law when, having qualified the contract signed by the defendant as a contract for an indefinite period of employment, it decided that the European Agency for Reconstruction (hereinafter EAR) could only terminate that contract in two circumstances — substantial reduction or winding-up of EAR's operation — which would be tantamount to considering the contract as a contract for a fixed term of employment the duration of which depended upon those criteria.

The applicant further maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law in so deciding because Council Regulation No 2667/2000 (1) which lays down rules concerning the functioning of EAR forbids the EAR to contract such an obligation since it is obliged to limit the recruitment of staff to what is strictly necessary with regard to the evolving needs of the EAR.

1

The applicant finally submits that should the EAR have created a legitimate expectation not to terminate the defendant's contract except in the specific circumstance of a significant reduction of its operation, such an expectation would be illegitimate with regard to the obligation deriving from the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and from the Council regulations governing the creation and functioning of the EAR.

---

(1)  OJ L 305, p. 7.

1

---