CELEX: C2007/117/59
Language: en
Date: 2007-05-26 00:00:00
Title: Case F-27/07: Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Sundholm v Commission

26.5.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 117/37
            
         Action brought on 26 March 2007 — Sundholm v Commission
   (Case F-27/07)
   (2007/C 117/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 2 June 2006 establishing the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 20 April 2005 in Case T-86/04 Sundholm v Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay, at that stage of the proceedings, EUR 1 by way of damages for non-material loss;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on the breach of Article 233 EC and of the obligation to state reasons inasmuch as it is not possible from the contested decision to know how the grounds of the abovementioned judgment were taken into account.
   Moreover, the applicant asserts that the contested decision, first, failed to take into account the aims and objectives pursued by the new Career Development Review System, and, second, is vitiated by inconsistencies between the comments and marks awarded.
   Finally, the applicant relies on the breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the facts on which his appraisal was based were not disclosed to him either when they were produced or in the context of the appraisal procedure.