CELEX: C2006/060/49
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-7/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 January 2006  by Beatriz Salvador García against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  25 October 2005  in Case T-205/02 Beatriz Salvador García v Commission of the European Communities

11.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 60/26
            
         Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Beatriz Salvador García against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-205/02 Beatriz Salvador García v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-7/06 P)
   (2006/C 60/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-205/02 Beatriz Salvador García v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 January 2006 by Beatriz Salvador García, represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
   
               (1)
            
            
               Declare this appeal admissible;
            
         
               (2)
            
            
               Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 and, if appropriate, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
            
         
               (3)
            
            
               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This appeal is based on a single plea: infringement by the CFI of Community law in paragraphs 36 to 59 of the judgment under appeal. In particular, the appellant takes the view that the CFI incorrectly interpreted the term ‘circumstances arising from work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.