CELEX: C2007/211/74
Language: en
Date: 2007-09-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-233/07 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2007 by Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

8.9.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 211/39
            
         Appeal brought on 5 July 2007 by Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission
   (Case T-233/07 P)
   (2007/C 211/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 April 2007 in case F-71/06;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance and, consequently, declare the appeal in Case F-71/06 admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Alternatively, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Make an order as to the costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission to pay them.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In her appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action by which she sought the annulment of her Career Development Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004-31.12.2004.
   In support of her appeal, the applicant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal has made errors of interpretation and assessment of the facts which led it to hold that the critical assessment of the applicant in the contested CDR was well-founded.