This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/117/48
Case T-92/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2007 by Jacques Frankin and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 Jacques Frankin and Others v Commission
Case T-92/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2007 by Jacques Frankin and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 Jacques Frankin and Others v Commission
Case T-92/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2007 by Jacques Frankin and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 Jacques Frankin and Others v Commission
OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 31–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 30–30
(MT)
|
26.5.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 117/31 |
Appeal brought on 28 March 2007 by Jacques Frankin and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 Jacques Frankin and Others v Commission
(Case T-92/07 P)
(2007/C 117/48)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellants: Jacques Frankin (Sorée, Belgium) and 482 other appellants (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought by the appellant
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 principally concerning an action for annulment of an express decision of 10 June 2005 by which the Commission refused to grant the appellants assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations; |
|
— |
make an order as to the costs, fees and expenses and order the Commission to pay them. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of their action, the appellants assert that by dismissing their action at first instance, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when examining the pleas in law relied on at first instance, alleging, first, infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and from the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and, second, breach of the principle of non-discrimination.