Case T-414/06 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2006 against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October 2006 in Case F-114/05, Philippe Combescot v Commission
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, indemnification, personnel administration, reassignment, regulations for civil servants, sick leave

C 42/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Appeal brought on 22 December 2006 against the order of
the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/
06, Gualtieri v Commission

Appeal brought on 27 December 2006 against the judg-
ment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October
2006 in Case F-114/05, Philippe Combescot v Commission

(Case T-413/06 P)

(2007/C 42/73)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case T-414/06 P)

(2007/C 42/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Claudia Gualtieri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by
M. Gualtieri and P. Gualtieri, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— annulment of

the contested order of

the Civil Service
Tribunal of 9 October 2006, and a declaration that the Civil
Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the order of the
Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 9 October
2006 in Case F-53/06, by which the Civil Service Tribunal
declared that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae to make a
ruling in the dispute between the applicant — a national expert
on secondment — and the Commission.

In support of her appeal, the appellant alleges that the contested
measure is based on a superficial and incorrect understanding of
Article 1(2) of the Commission Decision concerning the rules
applicable to seconded national experts (SNEs). On that point,
she refers to Article 7(a),
(f) and (g), Article 11(1) and (3),
Article 12(1) and (2), Article 13(1), Article 14 and Article 15 of
that Decision.

the home

According to the appellant, it is to be inferred from that multi-
plicity of provisions that the relationship between a national
expert
dormant
and
throughout
the period of secondment and that during that
period the national expert on secondment is fully integrated in
the Commission organisation, for whose exclusive benefit the
expert is required to carry out his or her duties.

administration remains

Consequently, there can be no doubt that disputes relating to
that special employment relationship fall within the jurisdiction
the legal position of national
of
experts on secondment being clearly assimilated to that of
servants.

the Civil Service Tribunal,

Appellant: Philippe Combescot
A. Maritati and V. Messa, avvocati)

(Lecce,

Italy)

(represented by

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— reverse the judgment of

the Civil Service Tribunal of
19 October 2006 in Case F-114/05 by declaring at the
outset that the action is admissible in that it was brought in
good time and in that it is based on the interest possessed
by the official in obtaining judicial protection;

— recognise

that, on account of

adopted,
Mr Philippe Combescot has suffered non-material damage,
both to his health and to his image, with serious conse-
quences for his mental stability;

the measure

— order that Mr Combescot be paid the sum of EUR 150 000

by way of compensation for damage;

— order the Commission to pay the costs and charges incurred

in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of
the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 October
2006 in Case F-114/05, by which the action was declared to be
inadmissible on the grounds that it had been brought out of
time and that the applicant had no legal
interest in bringing
proceedings.

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges:

— misinterpretation of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations,
with particular reference to the definition of the expression
‘rejected […] by implied decision’,
in that the judgment
under appeal — for the purposes of determining the time-
limits for contesting the rejection — assimilated the express
decision adopted within the time-limits, but not communi-
cated, to the implied decision of rejection. According to the
appellant,
from
addressing the crucial issue in the dispute: an express deci-
sion of rejection, adopted within the time-limits laid down
in the Staff Regulations, exists for all intents and purposes,
even if it is not communicated to the person concerned.

the judgment at

instance refrains

first

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/43

— aside from other considerations, in the case in question, the
unacceptable delay in communicating the decision can in no
way be imputed to the appellant. On this point, too, the
Tribunal failed to carry out an adequate evaluation — even
in terms of procedural correctness — of the contentions of
the defendant concerning the difficulty of identifying the
official's place of residence.

— that, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of bringing
the action the appellant had already retired, he had an
interest in bringing proceedings to establish the unlawful-
ness of the transfer in question and he continues to possess
such an interest, in that his application for compensation for
non-material and professional damage is predicated upon
establishing the unlawfulness of the contested measure.

Appeal brought on 29 December 2006 by De Smedt
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 19 October 2006 in Case F-59/05, De Smedt v Commis-
sion

(Case T-415/06 P)

(2007/C 42/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Elisabeth de Smedt
(represented by L. Vogel and R. Kechiche, lawyers)

(Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— annulment in full of the judgment under appeal, delivered in
19 October 2006 by the Second Chamber of
the Civil
Service Tribunal, notified by registered letter of 19 October
2006, by which the action brought by the appellant on
8 July 2005 was dismissed;

— grant to the appellant the forms of order sought in the

action brought by her on 8 July 2005;

— order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs of
the action pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Proce-
dure,
including the expenses necessarily incurred for the
purposes of the proceedings, and, in particular, the costs of
having an address for service, travel and accommodation
expenses and lawyers' fees, pursuant to Article 91(b) of the
Rules of Procedure.

decision of the Commission of 21 March 2005 fixing the classi-
fication and remuneration of the applicant, who was previously
an auxiliary agent
recruited as a contractual agent, and,
secondly, payment of damages.

In support of her application for the annulment of that judg-
ment, the appellant puts forward two grounds of appeal, the
first of which is based on infringement of Article 80(3) of the
Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Commu-
nities (CEOS) (1), together with a manifest error of assessment.
The appellant argues that, in rejecting the first plea in law under
her original application on the ground that the Commission
was obliged to follow a timescale laid down in terms of Regu-
lation No 723/2004 (2),
the former
temporary staff status by the new contractual agent status, the
Civil Service Tribunal allowed the Commission to disregard all
preliminary procedures relating to the recruitment of contrac-
tual agents, in breach of Article 80(3) of the CEOS.

for the replacement of

The second ground of appeal is based on infringement of the
principle of non-discrimination, a failure to state adequate
reasons and a failure to address the appellant's written pleadings
in rejecting the second plea in law of her initial application,
which was founded on the discriminatory situation in which the
appellant was required to work, by comparison with other
persons carrying out duties identical to her own, in the same
department of the Commission. The appellant objects that the
Civil Service Tribunal failed to provide a satisfactory response to
her submissions in that regard and did no more than reject the
plea, using an abstract form of words.

(1) The Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Commu-
nities were laid down under Article 3 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom,
ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down
the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS (OJ 1968 L 6, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004
amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Commu-
nities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the
European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 December 2006 — Sumitomo
Chemical Agro Europe v Commission

(Case T-416/06)

(2007/C 42/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 19 October 2006, the annulment of which is
sought by this appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the
action brought by the appellant seeking, first, annulment of the

Applicant: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Saint Didier,
France)
(represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities