Case C-268/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2008 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04 Michail v Commission
Date: 2008-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, administration of the Institutions, appeal, personnel administration, psychological harassment, regulations for civil servants

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/27

2a. Assuming that national legislation governing gaming policy
is compatible with Article 49 EC,
is it for the national
courts to determine, on every occasion on which they
apply that legislation in practice in an actual case, whether
the measure to be imposed, such as an order that a particu-
lar website be made inaccessible to residents of the Member
State concerned by means of software designed for that
purpose, in order to prevent them from participating in the
games of chance offered thereon, in itself and as such satis-
fies the condition, in the specific circumstances of the case,
that it should actually serve the objectives which might
justify the national legislation in question, and whether the
restriction resulting from that legislation and its application
on the freedom to provide services is not disproportionate
in the light of those objectives?

2b. In answering Question 2a, does it make any difference if
the measure to be implemented is not ordered and imposed
in the context of the application of the national legislation
by the authorities, but in the context of a civil action in
which an organiser of games of chance operating with the
required licence requests imposition of the measure on the
ground that an unlawful act has been committed in its
inasmuch as the opposing party
regard under civil
contravened the national
legislation in question, thereby
gaining an unfair advantage over the party operating with
the required licence?

law,

3.

Should Article 49 EC be interpreted in such a way that the
application of that article results in the competent authority
of a Member State being unable, on the basis of the closed
licensing system that exists in that State for the provision of
gaming services, to prohibit a service provider which has
already been granted a licence in another Member State for
the online provision of such services from also offering
those services online in the first Member State?

Appeal brought on 24 June 2008 by Christos Michail
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04
Michail v Commission

Form of order sought

— Declaration that the appeal is admissible and well-founded;

— Annulment, as necessary, of the judgment of the Court of

First Instance of 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04;

— Order as appropriate that costs be paid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

In his first ground of appeal, Mr Michail claims that the Court
of First Instance erred in the interpretation and application of
Community law and failed to comply with its duty to state
reasons in judgments, in that the Court acknowledged, in the
contested judgment, that the Commission was partly responsible
for the appellant feeling that he was subject to psychological
harassment, within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff
Regulations, but nonetheless rejected his action as unfounded.

In his second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that
the facts
the Court of First
presented for its assessment, in particular by examining the facts
individually and not in their overall context, and that the Court
made several errors in the legal classification of those facts.

Instance distorted the sense of

In his third ground of appeal, the appellant lastly criticises the
decision of the Court of First Instance to reject as inadmissible,
for lack of precision, the numerous pleas in law on which he
relied in support of his action, alleging, inter alia, infringement
of Articles 21a, 22a and 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the
principles of equal treatment and proportionality. By breaking
down his action into several parts, the Court of First Instance
altered the essential nature of the action in its objectives and
structure.

(Case C-268/08 P)

(2008/C 223/42)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission v
Germany

(Case C-271/08)

(2008/C 223/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Christos Michail (represented by: C Meidanis. lawyer)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Wilms and D. Kukovec, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany