This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/281/30
Case C-365/05 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2005 by Mme Dorte Schmidt-Brown against the Judgment delivered on 5 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in case T-387/02 between Dorte Schmidt-Brown and the Commission of the European Communities
Case C-365/05 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2005 by Mme Dorte Schmidt-Brown against the Judgment delivered on 5 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in case T-387/02 between Dorte Schmidt-Brown and the Commission of the European Communities
Case C-365/05 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2005 by Mme Dorte Schmidt-Brown against the Judgment delivered on 5 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in case T-387/02 between Dorte Schmidt-Brown and the Commission of the European Communities
OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 15–16
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.11.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 281/15 |
Appeal brought on 28 September 2005 by Mme Dorte Schmidt-Brown against the Judgment delivered on 5 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in case T-387/02 between Dorte Schmidt-Brown and the Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-365/05 P)
(2005/C 281/30)
Language of the case: French
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in case T-387/02 between Dorte Schmidt-Brown and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 September 2005 by Mme Dorte Schmidt-Brown, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
|
|
set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 July 2005 in case T-387/02 (Dorte Schmidt-Brown v the Commission of the European Communities); |
|
|
give a final decision in the case that: |
|
|
the decision of the Commission of 26 April 2002 rejecting the applicant's request for financial assistance to allow her to recover the entire costs incurred in defending the action seeking compensation for non-material, professional and material damage suffered as a result of defamatory statements made against her by Eurogramme Ltd be set aside; |
|
|
order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the case at first instance and of the appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance acted unlawfully in considering whether, in the circumstances of the case, there had been infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations to the detriment of the appellant without taking account of the decision made by the Vice-President of the Commission, Neil Kinnock, upon reviewing the request for aid and assistance of 15 January 2002, that that particular request should be granted.
The appellant was notified of that decision by letters dated 16 and 22 May 2003.
In so doing, the Court of First Instance failed to take into account all the circumstances of the case, and, in particular, the decisions made by the Commission after the appellant had brought proceedings before the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), the measures taken by the Vice-President of the Commission, Neil Kinnock, after reviewing the merits of the appellant's request for assistance of 15 January 2002, and the measures taken by the President of the Commission to restore the appellant's reputation and dignity both among her colleagues within DG Eurostat and within the Budgetary Control Committee (Cocobu) of the European Parliament.
Further, the Court of First Instance erred in law by confining its consideration to the applicability of Article 24(1) of the Staff Regulations, whereas in circumstances such as those of this case, it should also have considered the legality of the contested decision in the light of the requirements laid down by Article 24(2) of the Staff Regulations.