- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Court of First Instance (Appeal Chamber) of 8 May 2008.#Jacques Frankin and Others v Commission of the European Communities.#Appeal - Public service.#Case T-92/07 P.
ECLI:EU:T:2008:145
62007TO0092
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Appeal – Civil service – Officials and members of the temporary staff – Pension – Transfer of pension rights – Appeal manifestly inadmissible – Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Appeal: against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 in Case F‑3/06 Frankin and Others v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 seeking the annulment of that judgment.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Jacques Frankin and the 482 other officials and members of the temporary staff of the Commission whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment are to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission in the context of the present instance.
Summary
Appeals – Pleas in law – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 138(1)(c))
It is clear from Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that an appeal against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment under appeal, merely reproduces the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application already submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
(see paras 21-22)
See C‑352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I‑5291, paras 34 and 35; C‑345/00 P FNAB and Others v Council [2001] ECR I‑3811, para. 30; C‑248/99 P France v Monsanto and Commission [2002] ECR I‑1, para. 68; C‑488/01 P Martinez v Parliament [2003] ECR I‑13355, para. 40