Appeal brought on 22 May 2008 by Philippe Guigard against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2008 in Case T-301/05 Guigard v Commission

(Case C-214/08 P)

(2008/C 223/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Guigard (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward essentially three pleas in support of its appeal.

By its first plea, which consists of two parts, the appellant claims, first of all, that the Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted the Fourth Lomé Convention (1).

The error consists, first, of the fact that the Court held that under Article 313(2)(k) of the Lomé Convention it is for the national authorising officer to decide on the hiring of consultants and other technical assistance experts, without taking account of the power of budgetary control and administration of funds afforded to the Commission by that convention and the obligation on the latter institution to offer the national authorising officer technical assistance in the negotiation of contracts.

The error committed by the Court consists, second, of the fact that it held that the request from the national authorising officer to the Commission for approval of the decision to renew the appellant's contract of employment must contain an explicit reference to Article 314 of the Lomé Convention in order to make the 30-day time-limit referred to therein start to run, even though no such a requirement arises from that article. According to the appellant, if the Court had correctly interpreted that article it should have held that the Commission did not comply with that time-limit.

By its second plea, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a clear contradiction in its reasoning as the Court held that, as regards the plea alleging infringement of Article 317(a) of the Lomé Convention, on one hand, that plea was out of time and, on the other, that it was subsumed within the plea alleging infringement of Article 313(2)(k) of the convention. According to the appellant, the same plea cannot be rejected as being both inadmissible and unfounded.

By its third plea, the appellant claims, lastly, that the Court infringed his rights of defence in that, first, it failed to take account of all the arguments that he put forward at the hearing and, second, it misinterpreted the scope of his plea alleging infringement of the principles of care and sound administration and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

(1)  Fourth convention concluded between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) and the European Economic Community, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (approved by Decision of the Council and the Commission of 25 February 1991 on the conclusion of the fourth ACP-EEC Convention (OJ 1991 L 229, p. 1), as amended by the agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (OJ 1998 L 156, p. 3).