14.8.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/46

—

(Case T-493/09 P)

()

2010/C 221/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Y (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by J. Van Rossum, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

—annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 October 2009 (Case F-29/08 Y v Commission) dismissing the applicant’s action;

—annul the decision of 24 May 2007 to dismiss the applicant;

—order the Commission to pay him the remuneration which he would have continued to receive if his contract had not been prematurely terminated, together with all the allowances to which he is entitled;

—order the Commission to pay him compensation of EUR 500 000 in respect of the non-material damage which he has suffered;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 7 October 2009 in Case F-29/08 Y v Commission, dismissing the action by which the applicant had sought, on the one hand, the annulment of the decision of the Commission to dismiss the applicant and, on the other, damages.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits that the CST erred in law:

—by considering that the Commission did not have the obligation of consulting the Reports Committee when the decision of the Commission of 7 April 2004 laying down General Implementing Provisions on the procedures governing the engagement and the use of contract staff requires such consultation;

—by considering that the applicant was validly dismissed when he had not been able to submit his observations on the opinion of the Reports Committee, which was not sent to him;

—by ruling that the failure to send the opinion of the Reports Committee to the applicant did not infringe his rights of the defence;

—by considering that the decision to dismiss was not based on the opinion of the Reports Committee, when that very report was expressly referred to in the grounds of the decision to dismiss;

—by taking the view that the decision to dismiss was correctly founded when it was based on complaints and facts which preceded the applicant’s entry into service as a contractual agent; and

—by considering that the decision to dismiss did not constitute disciplinary action when the alleged inadequate conduct of the applicant gave rise to a disciplinary procedure concerning the same facts and the same conduct as that on the basis of which the decision to dismiss was justified.

—