CELEX: 62008TN0050
Language: en
Date: 2008-01-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-50/08: Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission

24.5.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 128/34
            
         Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission
   (Case T-50/08)
   (2008/C 128/73)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties
   
      Appellant: C. Michail (represented by C. Meïdanis, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   
               —
            
            
               hold that the present application to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06 is admissible and well founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the disputed measures/decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/06;
            
         
               —
            
            
               determine the financial compensation for the non-material harm to the appellant, which amounts to EUR 120 000;
            
         
               —
            
            
               make an order as to costs as laid down by law.
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   The appellant submits that, in the contested judgment, the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in ruling upon his application for annulment of his career development report for 2004 and of the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints submitted by him under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   More specifically, the appellant contends, first, that that the CST misinterpreted Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the general provisions implementing that Article. Second, the CST misinterpreted the form of order sought by the application upon which it ruled, and it appraised the evidence wrongly. Third, the CST relied on contradictory reasoning in dismissing his application, with the result that fundamental procedural rights enjoyed by him were infringed. Fourth, the CST erred in refusing to rule on a particular claim or otherwise employed insufficient reasoning and, finally, it wrongly dismissed part of the application for lack of precision.