C_2007129EN.01000201.xml

9.6.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/2

Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Luciano Lavagnoli against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 November 2006 in Case T-422/04 Lavagnoli v Commission

(Case C-74/07 P)

(2007/C 129/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Luciano Lavagnoli (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and H. Kraemer, agents)

Form of order sought

—	annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2006 in Case T-422/04;

—	grant the forms of order sought at first instance and, consequently, declare the application in Case T-422/04 to be admissible and well founded;

—	in the alternative, remit the case to the Court of First Instance;

—	make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on three submissions in support of his appeal.

In his first submission, the appellant claims the Court of First Instance erred in law in its interpretation of the general implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the administrative guide to appraisal and promotion of officials inasmuch as it held, in paragraphs 53 to 75 of the contested judgment, that the abovementioned general implementing provisions do not require an automatic link between the priority points allocated to the directorates general and the merit points, in this case, and then the priority points had been correctly attributed.

In his second submission, the applicant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in regard to procedure by refusing, in paragraphs 59 and 67 of its judgment, to accept his requests concerning the organisation of the procedure, which were to require the Commission to submit a comparison between the points awarded to officials eligible for promotion and their merit points, and the method of comparison used in order to make a comparative consideration of the merits of officials.

In his third submission, finally the applicant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in law, in paragraphs 76 to 100 of its judgment, by misconstruing the procedure for appraisal and promotion laid down in the general implementing provisions for Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the abovementioned administrative guide and by adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.