Appeal brought on 20 April 2007 by Bligny against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 15 February 2007 in Case F-142/06, Bligny v Commission

(Case T-127/07 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Francesco Bligny (Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, France) (represented by P. Lebel-Nourissat, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

declare that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in its assessment of the application form as regards the obligation on the candidate to attach documentary evidence of his citizenship;

declare that the CST did not deal with the applicant's pleas as to failure to take account of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of proper administration incumbent upon the selection board of competition EPSO AD/26/05;

accordingly, annul the order of the CST of 15 February 2007 in Case F-142/06;

making a new decision, annul the decision of the selection board of competition EPSO AD/26/05 of 7 December 2006, and that of 23 December 2006 refusing the applicant admission to the competition and thus to correction of his written test, and hold that the application form published on 15 May 2006 for candidates of the competition on the EPSO website was unlawful;

in the alternative, refer the case back to the CST for the purposes of a decision on the case in question and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the applicant requests annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing as manifestly unfounded his action by which he requested the annulment of the decision of the selection board of the competition refusing to correct his written test on the ground that his application did not include documentary evidence of his citizenship.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits that the CST fundamentally misread the facts which had been submitted to it, thus misinterpreting the application form to be filled in by the candidate, leading to an error of assessment of the form. Further, he relies on a plea relating to inadequate statement of reasons in respect of the contested order, as the CST did not deal with all the pleas and forms of order sought put forward by the applicant at first instance.

____________