This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/199/79
Case T-223/07 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2007 by Michel Thierry against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, Thierry v Commission
Case T-223/07 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2007 by Michel Thierry against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, Thierry v Commission
Case T-223/07 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2007 by Michel Thierry against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, Thierry v Commission
SL C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 42–42
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.8.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 199/42 |
Appeal brought on 27 June 2007 by Michel Thierry against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, Thierry v Commission
(Case T-223/07 P)
(2007/C 199/79)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Michel Thierry (Howald, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (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 order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, notified to the applicant on 17 April 2007; |
|
— |
grant the forms of order sought by the appellant at first instance and, consequently, declare the application in Case F-82/05 to be admissible and well-founded; |
|
— |
in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
|
— |
make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission to pay them. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In his appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal, which rejected in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded the action for annulment of the list of officials promoted under the 2004 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include his name.
In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea alleging an error of interpretation and of assessment of the facts, which led to a procedural error and an error of law by the Civil Service Tribunal in so far as it did not grant the application, as set out in the reply at first instance, for a member of the service in which the appellant was employed to be heard.