Case T-473/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06, Berrisford v Commission
Date: 2007-12-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, regulations for civil servants

C 64/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

(b) it contains manifest errors of appreciation because it decides
on the non-inclusion of 1,3-dichloropropene in Annex I to
Council Directive 91/414/EEC without it being established
that the substance poses an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment and does not meet the require-
ments of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of Directive 91/414 for inclu-
sion in Annex I;

Other party
Belgiím)

to the proceedings: Michael Berrisford (Brussels,

(i) the principles of

c) it breaches general principles of Community law and, in par-
legal certainty and legitimate
ticular,
(iii) the
expectations,
principle of equal treatment,
(iv) the principle of sound
administration, and (v) the applicants' right to defence and
right to a fair hearing;

(ii) the principle of proportionality,

(d) it infringes the EC Treaty and the rule of law related to its
application, and in particular,
(i) Article 13 of Directive
91/414, as well as (ii) Article 95 EC and Articles 4 and 5 of
the above-mentioned directive.

illegality pursuant

The applicants also raise a plea of
to
Article 241 EC against Article 20 of Commission Regulation
1490/2002 (4) which, according to their allegations, substan-
tially altered their legal rights of expectations through the
amendment of Regulation 451/2000 so as to provide manda-
tory involvement of EFSA in the review of
the substance
concerned.

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000
laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second
and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2)
of Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ L 55, p. 25).

(3) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the
procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on
the Commission (OJ L 184, p. 23).

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 of 14 August 2002
laying down further detailed rules for the implementation of the
third stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of
Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Regulation (EC)
No 451/2000 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 224, p. 23).

Appeal brought on 21 December 2007 by Commission of
the European Communities against the judgment of the
Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 October 2007 in
Case F-107/06, Berrisford v Commission

(Case T-473/07 P)

(2008/C 64/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by D. Martin and K. Hermann, Agents)

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment of

the Civil Service Tribunal of
10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 in so far as it holds,
following the examination of the first part of the second
plea, alleging failure to take any account of the fact that he
had reached the promotion threshold two times but had not
been promoted during the earlier exercises at first instance,
that
the Appointing Authority has therefore vitiated the
consideration of the applicant's comparative merits at first
instance with an error of law and, therefore, in this case, a
manifest error of assessment;

— refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

— reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the Commission seeks partial annulment of the
judgment of 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 Berrisford v
Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled
its decision not to include the applicant's name on the list of
officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure and
dismissed the action with respect to the remainder of the appli-
cant's forms of order.

In support of its appeal the Commission first puts forward two
pleas alleging errors of law which it claims the CST committed
in the contested judgment.

First, the Commission claims that the CST has infringed Article
45(1) of the Staff Regulations in so far as it laid down an obliga-
tion for the Appointing Authority to take account, by awarding
extra points during the consideration of the applicant's merits,
of the fact that he was put forward on two occasions by his
directorate general in the procedure for ‘reserve officials’.

The second error of law that the Commission complains of in
the contested decision is an infringement of Article 13(1) and
(3)(b) of General Implementing Provisions in that the CST failed
to recognise that the applicant's situation in 2003 and 2004
had been implicitly taken into consideration when the AIPN
awarded points as a merit aspect related to the length of time in
his grade.

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/43

Finally,
reasoning of the contested decision is contradictory.

the Commission relies on a plea alleging that

the

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in
Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Cofra v
Commission

(Case T-477/07)

(2008/C 64/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cofra srl (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — SIMSA v
Commission

(Case T-480/07)

(2008/C 64/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Form of order sought

Applicant: Società
(Salerno, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl SIMSA

— annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of

the

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Commission of 17 October 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

— annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of

the

Commission of 17 October 2007;

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in
Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in
Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Nuova Agricast v
Commission

(Case T-479/07)

(2008/C 64/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Deltalinqs and
SVZ v Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Nuova Agricast srl (Cerignola, Italy) (represented by:
A. Calabrese, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

(Case T-481/07)

(2008/C 64/72)

Language of the case: Dutch

Form of order sought

Applicants: Deltalinqs and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereniging
Rotterdam (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulen-
belt, lawyer)

— annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of

the

Commission of 17 October 2007;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities