|
24.11.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 283/32 |
Appeal brought on 19 July 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 5 July 2007 in Case F-25/06, Ider and Others v Commission
(Case T-361/07 P)
(2007/C 283/59)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
Other party to the proceedings: B. Ider (Halle, Belgium), M.-C. Desorbay (Meise, Belgium) and L. Noschese (Braine-le-Château, Belgium)
Form of order sought by the appellant
|
— |
Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 July 2007 in Case F-25/06; |
|
— |
refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
|
— |
reserve the costs; |
|
— |
in the alternative, annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 July 2007 in Case F-25/06 and, in determining the present case itself, grant the forms of order sought by the defendant at first instance, and therefore, dismiss the action in Case F-25/06; order the defendant in the appeal to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By judgment of 5 July 2007 in Case F-25/06, Ider and Others v Commission, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled the decision by which the Commission fixed Ms Ider's remuneration under a contract for a member of the contract staff. The applicants, former salaried employees under Belgian law, were engaged as temporary members of staff entrusted with executive duties following a change to the regime applicable to other servants of the Communities.
The Commission's first plea in support of its appeal alleges an error of law in that the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued the scope of the principle of equal treatment in its interpretation of the applicable provisions, in particular in relation to the definition used by the Commission to include family allowances in the definition of remuneration.
The second plea alleges breach of the principle of the obligation to state reasons in that the Civil Service Tribunal did not rule on the concept of remuneration.