This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0156
Case T-156/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission
Case T-156/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission
Case T-156/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission
OJ C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 39–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.7.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 171/39 |
Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission
(Case T-156/08 P)
(2008/C 171/75)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: R (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by Y. Minatchy, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought by the appellant
|
— |
Annul the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07; |
|
— |
Grant the application for annulment and damages made by the applicant at first instance; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present appeal, the applicant is seeking the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dismissing as inadmissible the action in which he applied, first, for the annulment of his entire probationary period and all the measures produced in that connection, including the end of probationary period report, and, second, for damages by way of compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.
In support of his appeal, the applicant relies, first, on a denial of due process inasmuch as the Tribunal did not take account of certain factors and documents submitted by the applicant and, second, on an erroneous interpretation of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. The applicant also relies on manifest errors in the assessment of the facts.