‘Appeal brought on 16 July 2008 by P. Longinidis against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop

(Case T-283/08 P)

(2008/C 272/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Pavlos Longinidis (represented by P. Giatagantzidis and S. Stavropoulou, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Cedefop

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop;

— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 30 November 2005 terminating the appellant's employment contract of indefinite duration of 4 March 2003, and any other related administrative act;

— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 11 November 2005 amending the composition of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop, and any other related administrative act;

— annul the decision of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop of 24 May 2006 rejecting the appellant's complaint of 28 February 2006, and any other related administrative act;

— uphold the action brought by the appellant on 19 June 2006;

— order Cedefop to pay the costs of both the case at first instance and the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his action, the appellant sought, inter alia, the annulment of the decision of the Director of Cedefop terminating his employment contract of indefinite duration. That action was dismissed by judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2008.

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal was delivered in breach of the rules that govern the bringing of evidence because it was based on matters that were not proved. More specifically, when examining the appellant's argument that the reasons for dismissal were communicated to him orally at the meeting on 23 November 2005, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law because it altered the subject of the evidence.

In addition, the appellant contends that the reasoning set out in the judgment under appeal is not adequate. In particular, he asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal's reasoning was not adequate when it decided whether the appellant was appropriately and sufficiently informed by Cedefop as to the reasons for his dismissal and that the Tribunal did not specify all the facts which in its view led to his dismissal.

The appellant further contends that the Civil Service Tribunal misinterpreted and misapplied Community law as regards the following points: (i) in the light of the particular circumstances of the present case, compliance with the obligation to state reasons would have been ensured only by written notification of the reasons for his dismissal; (ii) his dismissal because of an isolated event constitutes a manifest error of assessment; and (iii) his rights of defence were infringed, given that he was heard after the decision to dismiss him had been taken, that no investigation or disciplinary proceedings were initiated in his regard and that crucial material on the file was not disclosed to him and his view was not sought on the accusations which arose against him.

Finally, the appellant submits that his complaint of 28 February 2006 challenging the decision to dismiss him was not heard by the Appeals Committee of Cedefop in an objective and impartial manner.’