CELEX: C2004/190/22
Language: en
Date: 2004-07-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-243/04 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2004 by M against the judgment given on 21 April 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-172/01 between M and Court of Justice of the European Communities

24.7.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/13
            
         Appeal brought on 9 June 2004 by M against the judgment given on 21 April 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-172/01 between M and Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case C-243/04 P)
   (2004/C 190/22)
   An appeal against the judgment given on 21 April 2004 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-172/01 M v Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by M, represented by H. Tagaras, avocat.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside the contested judgment and declare that she is entitled to a survivor's pension in accordance with Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested judgment is vitiated by a ‘reach of procedure’ and an ‘infringement of Community law’, both within the meaning of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The applicant also relies on the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, on the right to a fair trial.
   The plea of ‘breach of procedure’ concerns questions of evidence. It consists of two parts. The first relates to the decision of the Court of First Instance to dismiss, as out of time, two affidavits made before a notary which were produced after the close of the written procedure, but in order to reply to further documents and arguments in the rejoinder. The second is based on the fact that the Court of First Instance failed to take account of two other affidavits which were annexed to the initial claim and the originating application.
   The plea alleging infringement of Community law consists of an error of law committed by the Court of First Instance in the application of Article 27 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, by reason of the incorrect legal classification of the agreement made in the spring of 1999 between the applicant and her ex-husband. The appeal alleges, inter alia, that the contested judgment did not recognise that the 1999 agreement was a maintenance agreement, but arbitrarily and incorrectly characterised it as an act of ‘mere courtesy’.