This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007FB0078
Case F-78/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2008 — Boudova and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations — Act adversely affecting a party — Admissibility of the action)
Case F-78/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2008 — Boudova and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations — Act adversely affecting a party — Admissibility of the action)
Case F-78/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2008 — Boudova and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations — Act adversely affecting a party — Admissibility of the action)
SL C 223, 30.8.2008, p. 61–61
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
30.8.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 223/61 |
Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2008 — Boudova and Others v Commission
(Case F-78/07) (1)
(Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations - Act adversely affecting a party - Admissibility of the action)
(2008/C 223/115)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Stanislava Boudova and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A Lucas, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, agents)
Re:
Annulment of the decision rejecting the requests for review of the classification in grade of the applicants, former auxiliary agents appointed officials after they passed open competitions for grades B5/B4 — Application for damages
Operative part of the order
1. |
The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
2. |
Each party is to bear its own costs. |
(1) OJ C 247, 20.10.2007, p. 42.