# C_2009167EN.01002901.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/29

---

Corrigendum to the notice to the Official Journal in Case T-475/08 P

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 69 of 21 March 2009, p. 40
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 69 of 21 March 2009, p. 40

2009/C 167/57

The correct text of the OJ notice in Case T-475/08 P Duta v Court of Justice is as follows:

‘Appeal brought on 29 October 2008 by Radu Duta against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 September 2008 in Case F-103/07, Duta v Court of Justice

(Case T-475/08 P)

2009/C 69/93

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Radu Duta (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Krieg, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Admit the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit the present appeal;

| — | declare it well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare it well founded;

| — | accordingly, by amendment of the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008, declare the appellant’s appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, by amendment of the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008, declare the appellant’s appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | accordingly, on the basis of the claims set out above, annul the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, on the basis of the claims set out above, annul the contested decisions;

| — | so far as necessary, return the matter to the competent authority for a ruling in accordance with the judgment in the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, return the matter to the competent authority for a ruling in accordance with the judgment in the appeal;

| — | order the respondent to pay the sum of EUR 1 100 000 (one million one hundred thousand Euros) in respect of damages and interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the sum of EUR 1 100 000 (one million one hundred thousand Euros) in respect of damages and interest;

| — | so far as necessary, order an expert to give a report on the extent of the financial loss suffered by the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, order an expert to give a report on the extent of the financial loss suffered by the appellant;

| — | order the respondent to pay all the costs and expenses of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay all the costs and expenses of the case;

| — | authorise the appellant expressly to refer to his pleadings at first instance which are annexed to the present appeal and form an integral part thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

authorise the appellant expressly to refer to his pleadings at first instance which are annexed to the present appeal and form an integral part thereof;

| — | as to the remainder, authorise the appellant expressly to reserve all his rights of actions and remedies and in particular the right to bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

as to the remainder, authorise the appellant expressly to reserve all his rights of actions and remedies and in particular the right to bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 4 September 2008, delivered in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of Justice, dismissing as inadmissible the action by which the appellant sought, on the one hand, annulment of the memorandum informing him that he would not be offered a post as a Legal Secretary and, on the other, damages in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.

In support of his appeal, the appellant submits, firstly, that his right to a fair hearing, laid down in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, was infringed because of the structural partiality of the Court of First Instance and because of personal acquaintance between the Members of the Court of First Instance and the authors of the decisions contested before the Civil Service Tribunal. Secondly, the applicant refers to his arguments and pleas advanced at first instance, including breach of the principles of transparency, good faith and equal treatment.

Furthermore, the appellant states his conviction that he will be able to obtain justice only before a court truly independent of his opponent in the proceedings, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, and that he reserves the right to bring his case before the European Court of Human Rights.’

---