CELEX: C2006/326/34
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-344/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Joël De Bry (Appeal — Official — Reporting procedure — Career development report — 2001/2002 reporting period — Rights of the defence — Article 26, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/17
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Joël De Bry
   (Case C-344/05 P) (1)
   
   (Appeal - Official - Reporting procedure - Career development report - 2001/2002 reporting period - Rights of the defence - Article 26, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 326/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M.H. Kraemer, Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Joël De Bry (represented by: S. Orlandi, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (single judge) in Case T-157/04 De Bry v Commission, setting aside the decision of 26 May 2003 drawing up the appellant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls in part the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-157/04 De Bry v Commission, in so far as it set aside the Commission decision of 26 May 2003 making definitive the career development report of Mr De Bry in respect of the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 on the ground of a breach of the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, on the ground of inconsistency between some descriptive comments and the corresponding numerical mark, as regards the criticism of failure to comply with working hours;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders each party to bear its own costs in connection with the present proceedings and those incurred in the proceedings at first instance.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.