Case T-50/08: Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission
Date: 2008-01-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, administrator, appeal, professional career, psychological harassment, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 128/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2008

Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against
the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission

Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Arch Chemicals Inc.
and Others v Commission

(Case T-50/08)

(2008/C 128/73)

Language of the case: Greek

(Case T-120/08)

(2008/C 128/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: C. Michail (represented by C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Parties

Applicants: Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Norwalk, United States), Arch
Timber Protection Ltd (Castleford, United Kingdom), Bactria
Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH (Kirchheimbo-
landen, Germany), Rhodia UK Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom),
Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom) and
Troy Chemical Company BV (Maassluis, Netherlands)
(repre-
sented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought

— hold that the present application to set aside the judgment
of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06 is admissible
and well founded;

— annul the disputed measures/decisions of the Civil Service

Tribunal in Case F-34/06;

— determine the financial compensation for the non-material
harm to the appellant, which amounts to EUR 120 000;

— make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in the contested judgment, the Civil
Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in ruling upon his application
for annulment of his career development report for 2004 and
of
the appointing authority rejecting the
complaints submitted by him under Article 90(2) of the Staff
Regulations.

the decision of

More specifically, the appellant contends, first, that that the CST
the Staff Regulations and the
misinterpreted Article 43 of
general provisions implementing that Article. Second, the CST
misinterpreted the form of order sought by the application
upon which it ruled, and it appraised the evidence wrongly.
Third, the CST relied on contradictory reasoning in dismissing
fundamental procedural
his application, with the result
rights enjoyed by him were infringed. Fourth, the CST erred in
refusing to rule on a particular claim or otherwise employed
insufficient reasoning and, finally, it wrongly dismissed part of
the application for lack of precision.

that

— to declare the present application admissible and well
to join the questions of
founded, or,
admissibility to the examination of the substance, or, in the
alternative, to reserve its decision on standing until
judg-
ment in the main proceedings;

in the alternative,

— to order the annulment of Article 3(2)

(and Annex II),
Article 4, Article 7(3), Article 14(2), second paragraph,
Article 15(3) and Article 17 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase
of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2)
of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the
market;

— to declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the
applicants of Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive
98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market;

— to declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the
applicants of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of
the programme referred to in 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal
products;

— to order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second
phase of
referred to in
Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products

the 10-year work programme