Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/48

Appeal brought on 26 August 2008 by Chantal De Fays against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 De Fays v Commission

(Case T-355/08 P)

(2008/C 285/87)

Language of the case: French


Appellant: Chantal De Fays (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Moyse, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

Declare the present appeal admissible;

set aside the judgment under appeal;

grant the application for annulment made by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;

order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of 17 June 2008 in Case F-97/07 dismissing her action against the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2006 applying Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.

The appellant puts forward two pleas in law in support of her appeal:

In first place, the appellant is of the view that the CST erred in law in its definition of the temporal scope of the decision of 21 November 2006 by which the administration, first, found that the appellant had been regularly absent from 19 October 2006 and, secondly, withheld her remuneration for the whole of the period not covered by annual leave. The appellant submits that the CST considered that the effects of the contested decision extended only from 19 October 2006 until 13 December 2006, that is, up to the point at which the administration received a medical certificate justifying the appellant's absence, whereas, in fact, the effects of that decision continue up to the present. That error of law is the outcome of an erroneous judicial assessment of the facts, the inaccuracy of which, in the appellant's view, is attributable to the documents on the case file.

In second place, the appellant states that the fact that the CST based its decision that the administration was entitled to continue the suspension of the remuneration which was due to the appellant on the existence of an implied decision is an error of law, entailing breach of the second paragraph of Article 25, Article 59(1) and Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, the internal provisions of the Commission on the exercise of the powers conferred on the appointing authority and the rights of defence.