CELEX: 62008TN0105
Language: en
Date: 2008-02-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-105/08 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2008 by Kris Van Neyghem against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06, Van Neyghem v Commission

26.4.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 107/39
            
         Appeal brought on 26 February 2008 by Kris Van Neyghem against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06, Van Neyghem v Commission
   (Case T-105/08 P)
   (2008/C 107/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenken, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present appeal admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06;
            
         
               —
            
            
               uphold the claims for annulment and for compensation submitted by the appellant to the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant is seeking the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing his application, on the one hand, for the annulment of the decision of the selection board in general competition EPSO/A/19/04 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in that competition and, on the other, for damages for the material and non-material damage which he allegedly suffered.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant pleads a misunderstanding of evidence produced before the Tribunal, namely, a copy of the written test.
   The applicant pleads, in addition, an error in the Tribunal's reasoning concerning the absence of a manifest error of assessment on the part of the president of the selection board in the comparison between the mark given to the applicant and the literal assessment in the evaluation sheet.