Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09, Lebedef v Commission

(Case T-52/10 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

Annul the order of the CST of 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09 between Giorgio Lebedef, resident at 4 Neie Wee, L-1670 Senningerberg, Luxembourg, official at the European Commission, assisted and represented by Frédéric Frabetti, 5 rue Jean Bertels, L-1230 Luxembourg, avocat à la Cour, at whose offices service is to be made, and the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant, seeking annulment of the decisions of 15.2.2008, 1.4.2008, 10.4.2008, 20.5.2008 and 14.7.2008 concerning the deduction of 39 days from the applicant's annual leave entitlement for 2008;

Allow the applicant's claims at first instance;

In the alternative, refer the matter back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

Rule on costs and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-54/09 Lebedef v Commission, rejecting as manifestly devoid of any legal basis the action by which the applicant had sought annulment of a series of decisions concerning the deduction of 39 days from his annual leave for 2008.

In support of his appeal, the applicant raises nine pleas in law, alleging:

failure to have regard to the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and to Article 1(2) of the Framework Agreement governing relations between the Commission and the trade unions and professional organisations;

incorrect interpretation and application of the concept of freedom of association;

facts which did not exist in 2008;

failure to have regard to the decision of the Commission of 28 April 2004 laying down provisions applicable to absence due to illness or accident;

incorrect interpretation and application of the concepts 'participation in staff representation', 'secondment for the purposes of trade union matters' and 'absence on trade union matters';

distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and of the applicant's assertions and material inaccuracy of the findings of the CST with regard to the registration of 'irregular absences' in SysPer2;

misinterpretation of the applicant's declarations and an error in law committed by the CST by interpreting the concept of 'absence' as it is defined in Articles 57, 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations;

an error in law committed by the CST in applying Article 60 of the Staff Regulations; and

a failure to state reasons with regard to various decisive points in the contested matter.

____________