# C_2009153EN.01004101.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/41

---

Appeal brought on 8 April 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission

(Case T-143/09 P)

2009/C 153/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Nicole Petrilli (Woluwé-Saint-Étienne, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | annul the judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli; and

Petrilli

| — | order each of the parties to bear their own costs in connection with the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order each of the parties to bear their own costs in connection with the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission by which the Tribunal annulled the Commission decision of 20 July 2007 dismissing Ms Petrilli’s request for her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks to be extended.

Petrilli

Commission

In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal alleging that:

| — | the Tribunal should, according to the Commission, have declared the action inadmissible in view of the fact that the annulled decision contained no real and detailed examination of the applicant’s personal situation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Tribunal should, according to the Commission, have declared the action inadmissible in view of the fact that the annulled decision contained no real and detailed examination of the applicant’s personal situation;

| — | the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the six year rule contained in Decision C(2004) 1597/6 of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services (1) infringes Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the six year rule contained in Decision C(2004) 1597/6 of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services (1) infringes Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities;

1

| — | the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the unlawfulness of the six year rule alone sufficed for the Commission to incur non-contractual liability without checking in addition whether the Commission had manifestly and gravely infringed its wide discretion to assess the interest of the service in not renewing of Ms Petrilli’s contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the unlawfulness of the six year rule alone sufficed for the Commission to incur non-contractual liability without checking in addition whether the Commission had manifestly and gravely infringed its wide discretion to assess the interest of the service in not renewing of Ms Petrilli’s contract.

---

(1)  Administrative Notices No 75-2004 of 24 June 2004.

1

---