# C_2007082EN.01004601.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/46

---

Appeal brought on 14 February 2007 by José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05, de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission

(Case T-40/07 P)

(2007/C 82/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Martins, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | declare this appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare this appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | order the Commission to produce a file containing all the documents concerning the applicant in his administrative file held at the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission, the medical service and in any other place starting with the procedural documents pertaining to the original proceedings on 2 February 2001 relating to alleged evidence of defamatory acts attributed to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to produce a file containing all the documents concerning the applicant in his administrative file held at the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission, the medical service and in any other place starting with the procedural documents pertaining to the original proceedings on 2 February 2001 relating to alleged evidence of defamatory acts attributed to the applicant;

| — | order the Commission to state the legal basis for the initiation of a medical assessment of the appellant's mental health by a Commission official immediately upon his appointment in an administrative investigation into the alleged defamation, and provide a list of documents from the original proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to state the legal basis for the initiation of a medical assessment of the appellant's mental health by a Commission official immediately upon his appointment in an administrative investigation into the alleged defamation, and provide a list of documents from the original proceedings;

| — | annul the judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-17/05; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-17/05;

| — | declare the medical assessment which was substituted for the administrative proceedings still pending since 2001 to be illegal; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the medical assessment which was substituted for the administrative proceedings still pending since 2001 to be illegal;

| — | declare that there has been a breach of the principle that a reasonable period of time should be observed in the proceedings, which have not yet been closed; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there has been a breach of the principle that a reasonable period of time should be observed in the proceedings, which have not yet been closed;

| — | declare, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, lack of reasoning and non-existence, the act of a Commission official of 18 June 2004 to be void and further declare that it is not imputable to the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, lack of reasoning and non-existence, the act of a Commission official of 18 June 2004 to be void and further declare that it is not imputable to the appellant;

| — | declare both that the Appointing Authority's act of 28 June 2004 is legally non-existent, and that it cannot be raised against the appellant, to whom it was never communicated; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare both that the Appointing Authority's act of 28 June 2004 is legally non-existent, and that it cannot be raised against the appellant, to whom it was never communicated;

| — | declare that a parallel file containing false information of a personal nature adversely affecting the appellant is kept by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that a parallel file containing false information of a personal nature adversely affecting the appellant is kept by the Commission;

| — | declare the act of a doctor of 13 July 2004 prohibiting the appellant from access to the Commission's buildings void and illegal on the grounds that it is not a decision of the Appointing Authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the act of a doctor of 13 July 2004 prohibiting the appellant from access to the Commission's buildings void and illegal on the grounds that it is not a decision of the Appointing Authority;

| — | declare the act of a Commission official of 22 September 2004 purporting to extend the appellant's medical leave by six months and other subsequent acts referring to earlier documents by an official of the Appointing Authority of June 2004 void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the act of a Commission official of 22 September 2004 purporting to extend the appellant's medical leave by six months and other subsequent acts referring to earlier documents by an official of the Appointing Authority of June 2004 void;

| — | the remainder of the claims before the first court; |
| --- | --- |

—

the remainder of the claims before the first court;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant claims that the Tribunal committed an error by founding its decision on an incorrect legal basis, namely Article 59 of the Staff Regulations on compulsory medical leave, whereas, the Commission infringed Article 86 of the Staff Rules and Annex IX, together with the texts which regulate the conduct of administrative investigations and disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the appellant argues that the Tribunal violated his rights of defence and infringed Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the principle of the right to a fair trial by hearing and determining the case on the basis of an incomplete file and by failing to give a ruling on the alleged existence of a parallel file. The appellant further claims that the Tribunal has infringed Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by hearing and determining the case on the basis of false evidence. Furthermore, the appellant criticises the Tribunal for failing to adopt a position in the contested judgment on his application to reopen the proceedings. The applicant also submits that the Tribunal unlawfully refused to draw the legal inferences from the alleged lack of competence of the authority which issued the decision to place him on compulsory medical leave which the Tribunal should, the appellant argues, have declared non-existent on the ground of lack of competence and lack of reasoning.

---