CELEX: 62008TN0012
Language: en
Date: 2008-01-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-12/08 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2008 by M against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07, M v EMEA

8.3.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 64/59
            
         Appeal brought on 4 January 2008 by M against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07, M v EMEA
   (Case T-12/08 P)
   (2008/C 64/95)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Appellant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 October 2007 in M v European Medicines Agency in Case F-23/07;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the EMEA of 25 October 2006 in so far as it dismisses the request of 8 August to consult the Invalidity Committee;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the EMEA dismissing the request for compensation;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant asks the Court to set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing, on the ground that it is inadmissible, the action for annulment of the decision of 25 October 2006 by which the European Medicines Agency dismissed his request to set up and Invalidity Committee.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea alleging infringement of Community law. He claims that the Civil Service Tribunal has committed an error of interpretation with respect to the scope of his action at first instance and, therefore, it gave a ruling ultra petita. He also claims that the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 33(1) and (2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities.