CELEX: 62008CN0268
Language: en
Date: 2008-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-268/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2008 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04 Michail v Commission

30.8.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 223/27
            
         Appeal brought on 24 June 2008 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04 Michail v Commission
   (Case C-268/08 P)
   (2008/C 223/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Christos Michail (represented by: C Meidanis. lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Declaration that the appeal is admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annulment, as necessary, of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2008 in Case T-486/04;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order as appropriate that costs be paid.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant relies on three grounds in support of his appeal.
   In his first ground of appeal, Mr Michail claims that the Court of First Instance erred in the interpretation and application of Community law and failed to comply with its duty to state reasons in judgments, in that the Court acknowledged, in the contested judgment, that the Commission was partly responsible for the appellant feeling that he was subject to psychological harassment, within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, but nonetheless rejected his action as unfounded.
   In his second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance distorted the sense of the facts presented for its assessment, in particular by examining the facts individually and not in their overall context, and that the Court made several errors in the legal classification of those facts.
   In his third ground of appeal, the appellant lastly criticises the decision of the Court of First Instance to reject as inadmissible, for lack of precision, the numerous pleas in law on which he relied in support of his action, alleging, inter alia, infringement of Articles 21a, 22a and 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality. By breaking down his action into several parts, the Court of First Instance altered the essential nature of the action in its objectives and structure.