CELEX: 62008CN0561
Language: en
Date: 2008-12-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-561/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04 Potamianos v Commission

21.2.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 44/37
            
         Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04 Potamianos v Commission
   (Case C-561/08 P)
   (2009/C 44/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Gerasimos Potamianos
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare Mr Potamianos's action inadmissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Rule that each of the parties is to bear their own costs as regards both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its appeal, the Commission is challenging the categorisation by the Court of First Instance of the notification sent to the respondent informing him of the non-renewal of his contract of employment as a temporary servant. The Court of First Instance interpreted that notification as a separate decision of the appointing authority. It is, however, clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice and, in particular, Case C-417/05 P Fernández Gómez, that such a notification has merely informative value, with only the terms of the contract stating that the contract will not be renewed upon expiry amounting to an act adversely affecting a party. As that contract was not challenged within the periods prescribed by the Staff Regulations, the Court of First Instance should have dismissed the action as inadmissible.
   In disregarding that case-law, the Court of First Instance therefore created a situation of legal uncertainty for the Civil Service Tribunal and for the Commission and other institutions which have concluded contracts similar to that at issue in the present case.