Case T-283/08 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2008 by P. Longinidis against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop
Date: 2008-07-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Cedefop, European official, action for annulment (EU), unfair dismissal, work contract

C 272/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.10.2008

the applicant claims that

sufficiently serious — important provisions

In its application,
the defendant's
administrative and normative conduct during, prior to and
following the end of the anti-dumping proceedings concerning
imports of CD-Rs from the People's Republic of China, Hong
Kong and Malaysia infringed — repeatedly and in a manner that
was
in anti-
dumping law which are intended to confer rights on the appli-
cant. Further, the applicant claims that those sufficiently serious
infringements of the law on the part of the Commission caused
the applicant significant damage. Finally, the applicant claims
that there is a direct causal link between those serious infringe-
ments of the law and the damage that has already been caused
and the damage still to be expected.

(1) Commission Decision of 3 November 2006 terminating the anti-
dumping proceeding concerning imports of recordable compact
discs (CD+/-R) originating in the People's Republic of China, Hong
Kong and Malaysia (OJ 2006 L 305, p. 15).

Appeal brought on 16 July 2008 by P. Longinidis against
the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop

(Case T-283/08 P)

(2008/C 272/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Pavlos Longinidis (represented by P. Giatagantzidis
and S. Stavropoulou, lawyers)

— uphold the action brought by the appellant on 19 June

2006;

— order Cedefop to pay the costs of both the case at first

instance and the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his action, the appellant sought, inter alia, the annulment of
the decision of the Director of Cedefop terminating his employ-
ment contract of indefinite duration. That action was dismissed
by judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2008.

The appellant submits that
the judgment under appeal was
delivered in breach of the rules that govern the bringing of
evidence because it was based on matters that were not proved.
More specifically, when examining the appellant's argument that
the reasons for dismissal were communicated to him orally at
the meeting on 23 November 2005, the Civil Service Tribunal
erred in law because it altered the subject of the evidence.

In addition, the appellant contends that the reasoning set out in
the judgment under appeal
is not adequate. In particular, he
the Civil Service Tribunal's reasoning was not
asserts that
adequate when it decided whether the appellant was appropri-
ately and sufficiently informed by Cedefop as to the reasons for
his dismissal and that the Tribunal did not specify all the facts
which in its view led to his dismissal.

Finally, the appellant submits that his complaint of 28 February
2006 challenging the decision to dismiss him was not heard by
the Appeals Committee of Cedefop in an objective and impartial
manner.

Other party to the proceedings: Cedefop

Action brought on 24 July 2008 — BASF Plant Science and
Others v Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service
Tribunal of 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis
v Cedefop;

(Case T-293/08)

(2008/C 272/55)

Language of the case: English

— annul

the decision of

the Director of Cedefop of
30 November 2005 terminating the appellant's employment
contract of indefinite duration of 4 March 2003, and any
other related administrative act;

— annul

the decision of

11 November 2005 amending the composition of
Appeals Committee of Cedefop, and any other
administrative act;

the Director of Cedefop of
the
related

— annul the decision of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop of
24 May 2006 rejecting the appellant's
complaint of
28 February 2006, and any other related administrative act;

Parties

Applicants: BASF Plant Science GmbH (Ludwigshafen, Germany),
Plant Science Sweden AB (Svalöv, Sweden), Amylogene HB
(Svalöv, Sweden) and BASF Plant Science Holding GmbH
(Ludwigshafen, Germany)
(represented by: D. Waelbroeck,
lawyer, U. Zinsmeister, lawyer and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities