- 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
Case T-49/08 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2008 by C. Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 22 November 2007 in Case F-67/05 Michail v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0049
62008TN0049
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
26.4.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 107/28
—
(Case T-49/08 P)
(2008/C 107/47)
Language of the case: Greek
Parties
Appellant: Christos Michail (represented by C. Meïdanis, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought by the appellant
—set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-67/05 in so far as it does not rule upon financial compensation for the non-material harm which he suffered as a result of acts and omissions of the administrative authority;
—determine the financial compensation for the non-material harm to the appellant, which amounts to EUR 120 000;
—make an order as to costs as laid down by law.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that, in the contested judgment, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in ruling upon his application for annulment of his career development report for 2003 and of the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the complaints submitted by him under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
More specifically, the appellant contends that the Civil Service Tribunal wrongly refused to grant financial compensation for the non-material harm which he suffered as a result of his being assigned to the Directorate-General for Agriculture (DG AGRI) after the Directorate-General for Financial Control, within which he fell, was abolished. In the appellant's submission, the Civil Service Tribunal applied Community law incorrectly as a result of misappraisal of the evidence and contradictory reasoning.
The appellant also submits that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in refusing to rule upon a particular claim or otherwise that its judgment displays inadequate reasoning and therefore infringes fundamental procedural rights enjoyed by the appellant and breaches Community law.
—