Case T-100/08 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2009 by Georgi Kerelov against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 12 December 2007 in Case F-110/07 Kerelov v Commission
Date: 2009-01-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EPSO, European Commission, appeal, competition (EU), data processing

C 69/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.3.2009

— the selection board did not invite the appellant to give
an explanation for the facts on the basis of which his
candidature was rejected, that is to say, the sending of
two emails to the selection board;

— the need, of its own motion, to check for any other breach
law which the CST may have

of the applicable rules of
committed.

Appeal brought on 12 January 2009 by Georgi Kerelov
against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
in Case
v
12 December
Commission

F-110/07 Kerelov

2007

(Case T-100/08 P)

(2009/C 69/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by
A. Kerelov, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the Euro-
pean Union of 12 December 2007 in Case F-110/07 Kerelov
v Commission;

— Grant

the applicant

the form of order sought at

first

instance;

— infringement of the right of due process and of the principle
of the impartiality of the Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal
dismissed the applicant's action as manifestly inadmissible
without permitting him to correct his application at a point
in time when the applicant could no longer bring a new
action in accordance with the rules, since the time-limit for
bringing actions had expired;

— infringement of the principles of the right to be heard by a
court and of the public nature of the proceedings, inasmuch
as no hearing took place;

— infringement of the principle of procedural fairness inas-
much as the Tribunal did not hear the applicant on the issue
of the inadmissibility of his action;

— infringement of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the
Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance inasmuch
as the Tribunal has, in reality, introduced a ‘crystallisation of
the contentious debate’ rule by considering that the applica-
tion contained no pleas in law;

— verification, of

the Court's own motion, of whether the
Tribunal committed any other infringements of the applic-
able rules of law.

Appeal brought on 29 October 2008 by Radu Duta against
the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
4 September 2008 in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of
Justice

(Case T-475/08 P)

(2009/C 69/93)

Language of the case: French

— Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the applicant is seeking annulment of the
order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2007 in
Case F-110/07 Kerelov v Commission dismissing as manifestly
inadmissible the action by which the applicant sought annul-
ment of the decision of the director of the European Personnel
Selection Office (EPSO) not to transmit to the applicant infor-
mation and documents relating to competition EPSO/AD/46/06.

In support of his appeal, the applicant relies on several pleas in
law alleging or for:

— infringement of the principle of administrative procedure
inasmuch as the Tribunal considered that the initiating appli-
cation did not put forward any pleas in law without ascer-
taining of its own motion whether the decision contested at
first instance was unlawful, without limiting itself to the
complaints put forward by the applicant;

Appellant: Radu Duta (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented
by F. Krieg, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European
Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Admit the present appeal;

— declare it well founded;

— accordingly, by amendment of the judgment of the Euro-
pean Union Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008,
declare the appellant's appeal admissible and well founded;

— accordingly, on the basis of the claims set out above, annul

the contested decisions;