# C_2009282EN.01005201.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/52

---

Appeal brought on 21 September 2009 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08, Lebedef v Commission

(Case T-364/09 P)

2009/C 282/99

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | set aside the judgment of the CST of 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08, Giorgio Lebedef, resident at 4, Neie Wee, L-1670, Senningerberg, Luxembourg, official of the European Commission, assisted and represented by Frédéric Frabetti, 5, rue Jean Bertels, L-1230 Luxembourg, avocat à la Cour, with an address for service at his offices, against the Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant, seeking annulment of the decisions of 29.5.2007, 20.6.2007, 28.6.2007, 6.7.2007, both decisions of 26.7.2007 and that of 2.8.2007 concerning the deduction of 32 days from the appellant’s entitlement to annual leave for 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the CST of 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08, Giorgio Lebedef, resident at 4, Neie Wee, L-1670, Senningerberg, Luxembourg, official of the European Commission, assisted and represented by Frédéric Frabetti, 5, rue Jean Bertels, L-1230 Luxembourg, avocat à la Cour, with an address for service at his offices, against the Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant, seeking annulment of the decisions of 29.5.2007, 20.6.2007, 28.6.2007, 6.7.2007, both decisions of 26.7.2007 and that of 2.8.2007 concerning the deduction of 32 days from the appellant’s entitlement to annual leave for 2007;

| — | uphold the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

| — | in the alternative, return the action to be heard by the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, return the action to be heard by the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | rule on costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant requests that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 7 July 2009, delivered in Case F-39/08 Lebedef v Commission, rejecting the action by which the appellant sought the annulment of a series of decisions concerning the deduction of 32 days from the appellant’s entitlement to annual leave for 2007, be set aside.

Lebedef

Commission

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward nine pleas in law, alleging:

| — | failure to have regard to the sixth paragraph of Article 1 on Annex II to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities with regard to the composition and operation of, inter alia, the Staff Committee and to Article 1(2) of the Framework Agreement on relations between the Commission and staff unions and associations; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to have regard to the sixth paragraph of Article 1 on Annex II to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities with regard to the composition and operation of, inter alia, the Staff Committee and to Article 1(2) of the Framework Agreement on relations between the Commission and staff unions and associations;

| — | incorrect interpretation and application of the concept of ‘trade union freedom’ based on Article 24b of the Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrect interpretation and application of the concept of ‘trade union freedom’ based on Article 24b of the Regulations;

| — | failure to have regard to point III.c concerning part-time work for medical reasons of Commission Decision [C(2004) 1597] of 28 April 2004 introducing implementing provisions on absences as a result of sickness or accident and, more particularly, the point providing that ‘any days of annual leave taken count as whole days’; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to have regard to point III.c concerning part-time work for medical reasons of Commission Decision [C(2004) 1597] of 28 April 2004 introducing implementing provisions on absences as a result of sickness or accident and, more particularly, the point providing that ‘any days of annual leave taken count as whole days’;

| — | failure to have regard to the appellant’s state of health; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to have regard to the appellant’s state of health;

| — | incorrect interpretation and application of the concepts ‘participation in staff representation’, ‘secondment to a trade union’ and ‘official trade union business’; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrect interpretation and application of the concepts ‘participation in staff representation’, ‘secondment to a trade union’ and ‘official trade union business’;

| — | distortion of the facts and the appellant’s assertions and the material inaccuracy of the findings of the CST with regard to registration of ‘unauthorised absence’ in SysPer2; |
| --- | --- |

—

distortion of the facts and the appellant’s assertions and the material inaccuracy of the findings of the CST with regard to registration of ‘unauthorised absence’ in SysPer2;

| — | an error in law committed by the CST by interpreting the concept of ‘absence’ as it is defined in Articles 57, 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

an error in law committed by the CST by interpreting the concept of ‘absence’ as it is defined in Articles 57, 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | an error in law committed by the CST in the application of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

an error in law committed by the CST in the application of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations; and

| — | failure to give reasons as regards the assessments made by the CST which are challenged in the first eight pleas in law. |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to give reasons as regards the assessments made by the CST which are challenged in the first eight pleas in law.

---