Case T-415/06 P: 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 Commission
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appeal, contract staff, pay, personnel administration

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