Case C-100/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by É. R. and Others against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 13 December 2006 in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appeal, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, damages, disease of the nervous system

C 129/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2007

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Luciano Lavagnoli
against
Instance
(Third Chamber) delivered on 23 November 2006 in
Case T-422/04 Lavagnoli v Commission

the Court of First

the judgment of

(Case C-74/07 P)

(2007/C 129/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Luciano Lavagnoli (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities (represented by: J. Curral and H. Kraemer, agents)

the European

Form of order sought

— annul

the judgment of

the Court of First

Instance of

23 November 2006 in Case T-422/04;

— grant the forms of order sought at first instance and, conse-
quently, declare the application in Case T-422/04 to be
admissible and well founded;

— in the alternative, remit

the case to the Court of First

Instance;

— make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the

Commission to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three submissions in support of his
appeal.

In his first submission, the appellant claims the Court of First
Instance erred in law in its interpretation of the general imple-
menting provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of
Officials of the European Communities and the administrative
guide to appraisal and promotion of officials inasmuch as it
held, in paragraphs 53 to 75 of the contested judgment, that
the abovementioned general
implementing provisions do not
require an automatic link between the priority points allocated

to the directorates general and the merit points, in this case, and
then the priority points had been correctly attributed.

In his second submission, the applicant claims that the Court of
First Instance erred in regard to procedure by refusing, in para-
graphs 59 and 67 of
to accept his requests
its judgment,
concerning the organisation of the procedure, which were to
require the Commission to submit a comparison between the
points awarded to officials eligible for promotion and their
merit points, and the method of comparison used in order to
make a comparative consideration of the merits of officials.

In his third submission, finally the applicant claims that the
Court of First Instance erred in law, in paragraphs 76 to 100 of
its judgment, by misconstruing the procedure for appraisal and
promotion laid down in the general
implementing provisions
for Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and
the abovementioned administrative guide and by adopting an
erroneous interpretation of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations
of Officials.

Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by É. R. and Others
against
the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber) on 13 December 2006 in
Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission

judgment

delivered

the

by

(Case C-100/07 P)

(2007/C 129/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: É.R, J.R, A.R, B.R, O.O, T.D, V.D, J.M.D, D.D, D.F, E.E,
C.F, M.R,
(represented by: F. Honnorat,
lawyer)

I.R, B.R, M.R, C.S.

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/3

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare the appeal admissible;

— declare the appeal to be well founded;

Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis
against
the Court of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in
Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament

judgment

delivered

the

by

(Case C-103/07 P)

(2007/C 129/04)

Language of the case: French

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (First Chamber) of 13 December
2006 in Case T-138/03;

Parties

— order the case to be referred back to the Court of First

Instance to rule on the appellants' claims.

Appellant: Angel Angelidis (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

By their appeal, the appellants seek to have the contested judg-
ment set aside in so far as it rejected their application as being
partly inadmissible and partly unfounded.

— declare the appeal admissible and well founded and, accord-

ingly,

First, as regards the admissibility of their appeal, the appellants
submit that the reasoning of the Court is contradictory and
that, by holding that the action for compensation resulting from
the infection and death of Mr H.E.R was brought after the
expiry of the 5-year limitation period, the Court violated both
Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 6(1)
of
the European Convention for the Protection of Human
the
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
appellants submit that since at the time their applications were
considered they did not have epidemiological data capable of
accurately pinpointing the date of on which their relatives
became infected, the Court could not declare that their action
was time-barred.

In that connection,

Second, as regards the consideration of the substance of the
case, the appellants submit that the Court also adopted contra-
dictory reasoning and violated Article 6(1) of the convention
cited above, on one hand, by basing its judgment on old reports
and by failing to taken account of the most recent epidemiolo-
gical data and, on the other hand, by holding that the existence
of a causal
link between the harm alleged and the alleged
unlawful conduct by the Community institutions was not estab-
lished.

— set aside the judgment of

Instance
of the European Communities of 5 December 2006 in Case
T-416/03 Angelidis v Parliament;

the Court of First

— annul the staff report for 2001;

— award damages and interest for non material harm and
harm to the his career, both on account of substantial irre-
gularities and substantial delay in the writing of the staff
report 2001 in a particularly distressing period for the
appellant,

— order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with
Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, the appellant criticises the Court of First Instance
for having committed a number of errors of law in the interpre-
tation of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials
of the European Communities and the general provisions imple-
menting those articles. More specifically, those errors concerned
the broad interpretation by the Court of the limited situations
in which an exception may be made to the rule that the staff
report must be drafted and countersigned by two different
members of hierarchy of the official under appraisal, and the