Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/23

—

(Case T-65/09 P)

2009/C 102/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Enzo Reali (Florence, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Other party to the appeal proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

—set aside the appealed decision and, subsequently, cancel the contested decision of the appointing authority;

—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to set aside the Civil Service Tribunal’s judgment in Case F-136/06 (1) rejecting the appellant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts classifying him at a grade and step at the moment of entering the service at the Commission as contractual agent.

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward four pleas in law.

First, he contends that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by deciding that the plea of illegality raised in the application at first instance against certain of the General Implementing Provisions (“the GIP”) was inadmissible in the absence of the raising of the same plea in the complaint of the pre-litigation procedure. The appellant submits that the issue of lack of Commission competence to which referred his pleas of illegality should be raised by the Tribunal ex officio. In a subsidiary manner, the appellant claims that, even if the Tribunal was not obliged to raise this issue ex officio, the said plea should have been considered admissible in so far as the legality of the specific criterion for his classification was questioned already in the original complaint.

Second, the appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of the appellant’s diplomas. He contends that determination of the value of a degree must be effected in regards of the national legislation where this degree was obtained since this determination is an exclusive competence of Member States and that the Tribunal reduced arbitrarily the scope of and distorted relevant Italian legislation.

Third, the appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of non-discrimination when assessing the value of the appellant’s diplomas and comparing them to the ones of a person who has completed an undergraduate degree.

Fourth, the appellant states that the appealed judgment contains the contradictory argument as, in his opinion, the Civil Service Tribunal seems both, to take into consideration the Italian legislation and to not apply it for the solution of the case.

* * *

(1) Not yet reported in ERC

—