Appeal brought on 8 July 2008 by Stanislava Boudova and Others against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 21 April 2008 in Case F-78/07, Boudova and Others v Commission

(Case T-271/08 P)

(2008/C 260/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Stanislava Boudova (Howald, Luxembourg), Adovica (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Kuba (Konz, Germany), Puciriuss (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Strzelecka (Arlon, Belgium), Szyprowska (Berbourg, Luxembourg), Tibai (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Vaituleviciene (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellants

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellants seek the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 21 April 2008 in Case F-78/07 Boudova and Others v Commission by which the CST dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the action by which the appellants had sought the annulment of the decision rejecting their application for the revision of the classification in grade established by the decisions to recruit them.

In support of their appeal, the appellants submit, first, that the CST infringed its obligation to state reasons in paragraph 38 of the contested order in so far as they were recruited to temporarily fill permanent posts included in the list of posts and not to replace officials or temporary servants who were unable for the time being to perform their duties, with the result that they were in actual fact — or should have been — recruited as temporary servants, or at the very least were in a position analogous to that of temporary servants.

Secondly, the appellants maintain, as regards paragraphs 39 to 41 of the contested order, that, in not having discounted the possibility that the undertaking by the European Parliament, contained in a decision of 13 February 2006, to reclassify its employees — who were recruited as temporary servants before 1 May 2004 after having passed an internal or open competition published before 1 May 2004 and were subsequently appointed as officials in the same category but in a lower grade than that in which they would have been appointed before 1 May 2004 — stemmed from an obligation in the Staff Regulations, the CST infringed the case-law cited in paragraph 37 of the contested order.

Furthermore, the appellants submit that the question whether there is an obligation stemming from the Staff Regulations is not a point of fact in respect of which proof should have been adduced by the appellants, but a point of law which the CST should have resolved and that a difference in the classification of officials whose factual and legal situations are identical or similar stemming from a position adopted subsequently by an institution other than that to which the appellants belong constitutes a material new fact which warrants a re-examination of the appellants' classification in grade.

Thirdly, the appellants submit that the CST failed to have regard to the concept of excusable error in so far as the note in Administrative Notice No 59-2005, published by the Commission on 20 July 2005, was liable to mislead the appellants regarding the advisability of submitting a complaint against the classification decision within the period laid down in the Staff Regulations.

Lastly, the appellants submit that the CST's reasoning infringes the provisions of the Rules of Procedure concerning the inadmissibility of actions.