Case C-424/05 P: Appeal brought on  29 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on  13 September 2005  by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-72/04 between S. Hosman-Chevalier and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, interpretation of the law, regulations for civil servants

C 10/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— pass final

judgment on the dispute, allowing the claims
submitted by the defendant at first instance and, conse-
quently, dismissing the application in Case T-272/03;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First

Instance;

— order Ms Fernández Gómez to pay the costs of the proceed-
ings, including her own costs in the proceedings before the
Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In its appeal, the Commission relies on three pleas:

1. The first plea alleges that the Court of First Instance erred in
law in holding the action to be admissible on the ground
that the letter of 19 January 2001 did not amount to a deci-
sion, and that the measure contested at first instance, that is
the electronic mail of 12 May 2003, was not merely confir-
matory but contained a new element in relation to the
contract of 17 January 2001 and the letter of 19 January
2001. The Commission considers that the action is inadmis-
sible inasmuch as the letter of 19 January 2001 and the
contract of 17 January 2001 define the administration's
final position with regard to the applicant. These are there-
fore the measures which the applicant should have chal-
lenged. The Commission submits that the electronic mail of
12 May 2003 neither constitutes a decision nor contains the
slightest new element in relation to the previous measures.
The Court should thus dismiss the action as inadmissible.

2. The second plea alleges an error of law in the interpretation
of the decision of 13 November 1996,
in particular the
concept of 'staff not governed by the Staff Regulations'.
According to the Commission, it is apparent from its objec-
tive and its very wording, as well as from the context in
which it was taken, that the decision covered all the 'admin-
istrative positions or contracts with the Commission' of all
the staff at the Commission that are not officials. In the
alternative, the Commission maintains that the Court of
First Instance ruled ultra petita and misinterpreted Article 8
of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
European Communities. Where, as in the present case, a
provision in the Staff Regulations provides the appointing
authority with a mere option, the exercise of that option
falls within its wide discretionary power.

3. The third plea alleges a breach of Community law by
is

awarding compensation for alleged material

loss that

neither actual nor quantifiable. It alleges, in the alternative, a
failure to comply with the duty to provide reasons when
calculating the damage, thereby preventing the Court from
reviewing whether the principle of proportionality has been
observed.

Appeal brought on 29 November 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
ered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-
72/04 between S. Hosman-Chevalier and the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case C-424/05 P)

(2006/C 10/35)

(Language of the case: French)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 September
2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities (First Chamber) in Case T-72/04 between S. Hosman-
Chevalier and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of
the European
Communities on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by H. Kraemer and M.
Velardo, acting as Agents.

Justice of

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back

to the Court of First Instance;

— order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the
including her own costs in the proceedings

proceedings,
before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits a single plea against the judgment
under appeal alleging breach of Community law in paragraphs
31 to 36 and 42 of that judgment. More precisely, it considers
that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the condition
relating to ‘work done for another State’ laid down at the end
of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.