CELEX: C2006/010/35
Language: en
Date: 2006-01-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-424/05 P: Appeal brought on  29 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on  13 September 2005  by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-72/04 between S. Hosman-Chevalier and the Commission of the European Communities

14.1.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 10/18
            
         Appeal brought on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-72/04 between S. Hosman-Chevalier and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-424/05 P)
   (2006/C 10/35)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-72/04 between S. Hosman-Chevalier and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. Kraemer and M. Velardo, acting as Agents.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings, including her own costs in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits a single plea against the judgment under appeal alleging breach of Community law in paragraphs 31 to 36 and 42 of that judgment. More precisely, it considers that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the condition relating to ‘work done for another State’ laid down at the end of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.