Case T-413/06 P: 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
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, appeal, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

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