Case C-237/06 P: Appeal brought on  28 May 2006  by Guido Strack against the order made on  22 March 2006  by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-4/05, Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, General Court (EU), Publications Office of the European Union, action by staff, administration of the Institutions, appeal, fraud against the EU

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive expired on 12 October
2004.

(1) OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16.

Appeal brought on 28 May 2006 by Guido Strack against
the order made on 22 March 2006 by the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-4/05, Guido Strack v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-237/06 P)

(2006/C 165/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Guido Strack (represented by: L. Füllkrug, Rechtsan-
walt)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) of 22 March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Guido Strack v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

— Annul the decision of 5 February 2004 to close the OLAF
investigation number OF/2002/0356 and the final case
report
(NT/sr D(2003)-AC-19723-01687 of 5 February
2004) on which that decision was based

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal the appellant submits that the Court of First
Instance made procedural errors and infringed the rule of Com-
munity law in Article 3(3) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC,
Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European
Union Civil Service Tribunal. The Court of First Instance did

not have jurisdiction at the time the order was made as it
should already have referred Case T-4/05 to the European
Union Civil Service Tribunal in December 2005 on the basis of
the abovementioned provision.

the appellant submits that

Furthermore,
the Court of First
Instance erred in procedure as it did not substantiate the
contested order with reference to a number of independent
grounds on which the action was based.

Moreover, the Court of First Instance infringed Community law
by wrongly interpreting the concept of
‘an act adversely
affecting him’ which is used in Article 90(2) and 90a of the
It did this by wrongly interpreting the
Staff Regulations.
concept itself and not taking into consideration previous case-
law, wrongly interpreting the rules in Articles 22a, 22b and 43
of the Staff Regulations, the fundamental right to physical and
mental integrity and the principle of effective judicial protec-
tion, and by misjudging the nature of claims for damages.

the appellant also submits that

Lastly,
the Court of First
Instance made procedural errors, which are apparent from the
case-file due to incorrect findings of fact and an incorrect legal
assessment of the facts as regards the OLAF investigations, and
also the illogical presentation thereof
in the statement of
reasons in the order.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.05.2006, p. 12

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court
of 15 February 2006 — Commission of the European
Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-21/05) (1)

(2006/C 165/44)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.