24.1.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 19/31 |
Appeal brought on 13 November 2008 by Paul Lafili against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission
(Case T-485/08 P)
(2009/C 19/59)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Paul Lafili (Genk, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims the Court should:
— |
annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 in so far as it rejected the pleas in law alleging infringement of Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations; |
— |
consequently, allow the appellant's claims at first instance and, therefore,
|
— |
order the defendant to pay all the costs at first instance and of the appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By this appeal, the appellant is seeking the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 4 September 2008, given in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission, by which the CST annulled the decision of the Head of Unit A6 ‘Career structure, evaluation and promotion’ in the ‘Personnel and Administration’ General-Directorate of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 May 2006, in so far as the judgment under appeal rejects the appellant's pleas in law alleging infringement of Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.
In support of his appeal, the appellant raised a single plea alleging the infringement, at first instance, of Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the infringement of the principles of interpretation of Community law and of the obligation to state reasons, and a distortion of the evidence.