CELEX: C2004/300/61
Language: en
Date: 2004-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-426/04 P: Appeal brought on 4 October 2004 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgment delivered on 7 July 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-175/03 between Norbert Schmitt and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

4.12.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 300/32
            
         Appeal brought on 4 October 2004 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgment delivered on 7 July 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-175/03 between Norbert Schmitt and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)
   (Case C-426/04 P)
   (2004/C 300/61)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 July 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-175/03 between Norbert Schmitt and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), represented by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Sébastien Orlandi, avocats.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside that the judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2004 in Case T-175/03 (Norbert Schmitt v European Agency for Reconstruction) in full.
            
         Giving judgment itself,
   
               —
            
            
               dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 25 February 2003 terminating the contract of the applicant at first instance as a member of the temporary staff;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the applicant at first instance and respondent on appeal to pay the costs of the appeal.
            
         Pleas and main arguments:
   The Court of First Instance disregarded the prohibition on ruling ultra petita in basing its decision on pleas and arguments that had neither been raised directly nor elaborated upon to the requisite legal standard by the applicant at first instance.
   Furthermore, the Court of First Instance made an error of law in interpreting clause 4 of the temporary staff contract concluded with Mr Schmitt as limiting the Agency's right to terminate the contract to situations arising from a significant reduction in, or cessation of, the Agency's operations before the end of its mandate.
   Lastly, the Court of First Instance also made an error of law in considering that the legitimate expectations of the applicant at first instance had been infringed when it is apparent from the judgment that no clear and unconditional assurance, complying and in accordance with the rules of the conditions of employment of other servants had been given to him in relation to his remaining in post until the end of the Agency's actual mandate.