# C_2009167EN.01001401.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/14

---

Appeal brought on 24 April 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission

(Case T-167/09 P)

2009/C 167/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Eggers and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg)

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 Civil Service Tribunal of 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission;

Liotti

Commission

| — | order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court of First Instance to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) of 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission, by which the Tribunal annulled Mr Liotti’s career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2006.

Liotti

Commission

In support of its appeal, the Commission advances three pleas in law, alleging:

| — | an infringement of Community law in so far as Article 8(7) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the GIP’) does not lay down an obligation at countersigning officer level, or even at Director-General level, to consider the application of appraisal rules in all draft CDRs for a particular grade; |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of Community law in so far as Article 8(7) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the GIP’) does not lay down an obligation at countersigning officer level, or even at Director-General level, to consider the application of appraisal rules in all draft CDRs for a particular grade;

in all draft CDRs

| — | breaches of procedure before the Tribunal adversely affecting the Commission’s interests since, by raising of its own motion at the hearing the requirements of concertation and consistency provided for in Article 8(7) of the GIP, the Tribunal infringed the Commission’s rights of defence by depriving it of the opportunity to produce conclusive factual evidence to prove that there was no infringement of Article 8(7) of the GIP when the CDR at issue was drawn up; |
| --- | --- |

—

breaches of procedure before the Tribunal adversely affecting the Commission’s interests since, by raising of its own motion at the hearing the requirements of concertation and consistency provided for in Article 8(7) of the GIP, the Tribunal infringed the Commission’s rights of defence by depriving it of the opportunity to produce conclusive factual evidence to prove that there was no infringement of Article 8(7) of the GIP when the CDR at issue was drawn up;

| — | an error of law in so far as the Tribunal treated the failure to take account of the provisions of Article 8(3) of the GIP as an infringement of an essential procedural requirement and/or a substantial irregularity resulting in the annulment of the CDR in dispute before the Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

an error of law in so far as the Tribunal treated the failure to take account of the provisions of Article 8(3) of the GIP as an infringement of an essential procedural requirement and/or a substantial irregularity resulting in the annulment of the CDR in dispute before the Tribunal.

---