This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/129/04
Case C-103/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament
Case C-103/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament
Case C-103/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament
IO C 129, 9.6.2007, p. 3–4
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.6.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 129/3 |
Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Angel Angelidis against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v European Parliament
(Case C-103/07 P)
(2007/C 129/04)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Angel Angelidis (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
Form of order sought
|
— |
declare the appeal admissible and well founded and, accordingly, |
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v Parliament; |
|
— |
annul the staff report for 2001; |
|
— |
award damages and interest for non material harm and harm to the his career, both on account of substantial irregularities and substantial delay in the writing of the staff report 2001 in a particularly distressing period for the appellant, |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By his appeal, the appellant criticises the Court of First Instance for having committed a number of errors of law in the interpretation of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the general provisions implementing those articles. More specifically, those errors concerned the broad interpretation by the Court of the limited situations in which an exception may be made to the rule that the staff report must be drafted and countersigned by two different members of hierarchy of the official under appraisal, and the interpretation by the Court that there is no need to consult the official's previous immediate hierarchical superior. As regards those two issues, the contested judgment suffers from numerous defects in the reasoning of the Court, which also misinterpreted the scope of several documents submitted to it by the appellant.