CELEX: 62009TN0091
Language: en
Date: 2009-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-91/09 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2009 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07, Skareby v Commission

1.5.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 102/32
            
         Appeal brought on 2 March 2009 by Carina Skareby against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 15 December 2008 in Case F-34/07, Skareby v Commission
   (Case T-91/09 P)
   2009/C 102/47
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the appeal admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment delivered on 15 December 2008 by the European Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-34/07;
            
         
               —
            
            
               allow the pleadings seeking the setting aside of that judgment and compensation submitted by the applicant before the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 15 December 2008 delivered in Case F-34/07 Skareby v Commission dismissing the action by which the appellant sought, firstly, annulment of her career development report for 2005 and, secondly, damages.
   In support of her appeal, the appellant raises three pleas alleging an error of legal characterisation of the facts, a failure correctly to apply Article 5 of the general implementing provisions and Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and a failure to state reasons, since the CST ruled that it could not be said that the Commission had not carried out an assessment of the appellant for the period from January to September 2005, despite the fact that the appellant’s career development report for 2005 was, almost word for word, merely a virtually identical copy of the appellant’s career development report for 2004.