Case T-233/07 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2007 by Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appeal, professional career, staff assessment

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/39

Moreover, the applicant contends that this discrimination as
well as the, in comparison with the applicant's allowance, higher
allowance given to unmarried male seconded national experts
(whether living in a relationship or not) leads to an infringement
of Article 141 EC and the principle of equal pay for men and
women as well as of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and of the prin-
ciple of proportionality.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

on

brought

Appeal
by Maddalena
Lebedef-Caponi against the judgment of the Civil Service
Tribunal delivered on 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06
Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

2007

July

5

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits that the Civil
Service Tribunal has made errors of interpretation and assess-
ment of the facts which led it to hold that the critical assess-
ment of the applicant in the contested CDR was well-founded.

Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Koninklijke Grolsch v
Commission

(Case T-234/07)

(2007/C 211/75)

Language of the case: Dutch

(Case T-233/07 P)

(2007/C 211/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Grolsch NV (represented by: M.B.W.
Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

Appellant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi
Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

(Senningerberg, Grand

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to
Grolsch, and in any event set aside that decision to the
extent to which it is addressed to Grolsch;

— set aside or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on

Grolsch;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

— Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 April

Pleas in law and main arguments

2007 in case F-71/06;

— Grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first
in Case

instance and, consequently, declare the appeal
F-71/06 admissible and well-founded;

— Alternatively,
Tribunal;

refer

the case back to the Civil Service

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

the Commission to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In her appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the judg-
ment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action by
which she sought the annulment of her Career Development
Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004-31.12.2004.

The applicant challenges the Commission decision of 18 April
2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case
No COMP/B-2/37.766 — Netherlands beer market), by which a
fine was imposed on the applicant.

In support of its action the applicant puts forward three proce-
dural heads of complaint. First, it argues that the proceedings
were unreasonably lengthy, and that this amounted to an infrin-
gement of the principle that proceedings should be conducted
within a reasonable period of time. Second, Grolsch submits
that its rights of defence were infringed inasmuch as it was
refused access to the other parties' replies to the statement of
objection. Third, it claims that the principles of sound adminis-
tration, including the principles of the duty of care and of the
innocence, were infringed inasmuch as the
presumption of
Commission did not act impartially during the investigation,
failed to take account of exonerating material, and conducted
the investigation in an incomplete or negligent manner.