Case T-293/07 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Alessandro Lofaro against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 24 May 2007 in Joined Cases F-27/06 and F-75/06, Lofaro v Commission
Date: 2007-09-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, appeal, probationary period, servant (EU), staff assessment, work contract

C 223/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.9.2007

Action brought on 25 July 2007 — cApStAn v
Commission

Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Alessandro Lofaro
against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
24 May 2007 in Joined Cases F-27/06 and F-75/06, Lofaro
v Commission

(Case T-287/07)

(2007/C 223/26)

Language of the case: French

(Case T-293/07 P)

(2007/C 223/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: cApStAn Sprl (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.
Bublot, lawyer)

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Appellant: Alessandro Lofaro (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by:
J.-L. Laffineur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

— Annulment of the Commission's rejection decision.

Form of order sought by the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

ingly,

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

the applicant seeks the annulment of

the
By this action,
Commission's decision of 22 May 2007 rejecting its tender
submitted in connection with the tendering procedure ‘Post-
editing services PER 2007’ (1) on account of an absence of
evidence of relevant experience.

— set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal
F-27/06 and 75/06 delivered on 24 May 2007;

in Cases

— rule on the merits and uphold the appellant's original appli-

cation.

In support of its application for annulment of the contested
decision, the applicant claims that the Commission erred mani-
festly in its reading of its application because the call for tenders
related precisely to its area of activity, which the applicant
claims to have stated in its tender. The applicant also states that
it had already secured a public contract in that area from the
Commission and that the services provided on that occasion
were never called in question.

In addition, the applicant claims that the contested decision is
based on manifestly incorrect
that error
amounts to a lack of reasoning.

reasons and that

(1) OJ 2007/S 21-023949.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal
erred in law in its interpretation of Article 90(2) of the Staff
Regulations and, in particular, as regards the period laid down
for lodging the complaint and the date to be taken into account
for the expiry of that period. The appellant claims that the
Tribunal's interpretation prejudices general principles of Com-
munity law, such as the principle of
legal certainty, of non-
discrimination and of proportionality, as well as the rights of
the appellant. He further submits that the Tribunal did not
respond to all the pleas put forward by him in his actions and
that, accordingly, the order is vitiated by a defective statement of
reasons which is inadequate and incorrect.