CELEX: 62008TN0248
Language: en
Date: 2008-06-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-248/08 P: Appeal brought on 23 June 2008 by Frantisek Doktor against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case F-73/07, Doktor v Council

30.8.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 223/52
            
         Appeal brought on 23 June 2008 by Frantisek Doktor against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2008 in Case F-73/07, Doktor v Council
   
   (Case T-248/08 P)
   (2008/C 223/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Frantisek Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the judgment delivered by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal on 16 April 2008 in Case F-73/07;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Grant the pleas seeking annulment and compensation submitted by the applicant at first instance;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant at first instance to pay all the costs of the action for annulment and of the appeal.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 16 April 2008, delivered in Case F-73/07 Doktor v Council, dismissing the action by which the applicant had sought, on the one hand, annulment of the decision of the Council to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and, on the other, damages in compensation for the professional, financial and non-pecuniary losses allegedly suffered.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant submits that the CST i) distorted the clear sense of certain pieces of evidence, in particular by basing a number of its conclusions on an incorrect material assessment of the elements of the documents submitted to it; ii) infringed the applicant's rights of the defence by not taking into consideration or not answering a number of elements or arguments put before it; and iii) committed two errors in law with respect to its interpretation of Community law relating to the applicant's right to complete his probationary period under normal conditions and to the administration's ability to supplement the reasoning of a complaint during the written procedure before the Community Courts.