Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/15

Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission

(Case T-597/11 P)

2012/C 39/32

Language of the case: Greek


Appellant: Christos Michails (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by C. Meidani, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

hold the appeal to be admissible and well founded;

set aside the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission;

order payment to the applicant of damages for the non-material damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 30 000;

make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its ruling on his application, by which he sought the annulment of the Commission’s refusal of the request made by him for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of the Commission’s rejection dated 14.9.2009 of his complaint made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

In particular, the appellant claims an infringement of his procedural rights and an infringement of Community law since, first, the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), erring in its assessment of the evidence, erred by entirely failing to examine whether evidence had been unlawfully taken into account when the Commission proceeded to change his employment status without adopting the administrative act necessary for that change. Second, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not observe the principles which govern the taking of evidence and the burden of proof since notwithstanding the fact that the appellant produced the document which proved his unlawful transfer, the Tribunal did not request, as required under Article 55 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, from the Commission at any stage of the proceedings the production of evidence which would refute the above position. Third, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not examine the reality of his employment status as that is revealed in the Sysper and Sysper 2 systems and on what legal basis the representation of him to be found there was supported in order to rule on whether that constitutes psychological harassment of him and falsification of evidence