Case T-355/08 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2008 by Chantal De Fays against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 De Fays v Commission
Date: 2008-08-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, regulations for civil servants, sick leave

C 285/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission made a
manifest error of assessment and based its decision on materi-
ally incorrect facts when concluding that the SoC arrangement
does not appreciably foreclose secondary market operators from
access to rough diamonds (the input foreclosure).

(1) Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission [2007] ECR II-2601, appeal
lodged by the Commission with the Court of Justice, Case C-441/07,
Commission v Alrosa, OJ 2007 C 283, p. 22.

(2) The rejection decision is appealed by the applicant before the Court
of First Instance in Case T-108/07 Spira v Commission, OJ 2007
C 129, p. 20.

Appeal brought on 26 August 2008 by Chantal De Fays
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 De Fays v Commission

(Case T-355/08 P)

(2008/C 285/87)

Language of the case: French

the period not covered by annual

In first place, the appellant is of the view that the CST erred in
law in its definition of the temporal scope of the decision of
21 November 2006 by which the administration, first, found
that the appellant had been regularly absent from 19 October
2006 and, secondly, withheld her remuneration for the whole
of
leave. The appellant
submits that the CST considered that the effects of the contested
decision extended only
from 19 October 2006 until
13 December 2006, that is, up to the point at which the admin-
istration received a medical certificate justifying the appellant's
absence, whereas, in fact, the effects of that decision continue
up to the present. That error of law is the outcome of an erro-
neous judicial assessment of the facts, the inaccuracy of which,
in the appellant's view, is attributable to the documents on the
case file.

In second place, the appellant states that the fact that the CST
based its decision that
the administration was entitled to
continue the suspension of the remuneration which was due to
the appellant on the existence of an implied decision is an error
of law, entailing breach of the second paragraph of Article 25,
the
Article 59(1) and Article 60 of
internal provisions of the Commission on the exercise of the
powers conferred on the appointing authority and the rights of
defence.

the Staff Regulations,

Parties

Action brought on 1 September 2008 — Hellenic Republic
v Commission of the European Communities

Appellant: Chantal De Fays (Bereldange, Luxembourg)
sented by F. Moyse, lawyer)

(repre-

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Declare the present appeal admissible;

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

Parties

(Case T-356/08)

(2008/C 285/88)

Language of the case: Greek

— grant the application for annulment made by the appellant

before the Civil Service Tribunal;

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Khalkias and E.
Leftheriotou)

— order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of

proceedings.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the
judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of 17 June
2008 in Case F-97/07 dismissing her action against the decision
of the appointing authority of 21 November 2006 applying
Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.

The appellant puts forward two pleas in law in support of her
appeal:

Form of order sought

— uphold the Hellenic Republic's action and annul

the
contested Commission decision in its entirety or otherwise
alter it in accordance with the matters that have been more
specifically set out, ordering that no correction be made
with regard to arable crops for the crop years 2004 and
2005 or, in any event, that the correction be restricted to
5 % and only to expenditure in respect of durum wheat;