Appeal brought on 20 July 2010 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission

(Case T-308/10 P)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and by E.Bourtzalas and I. Antypas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Fotios Nanopoulos (Itzig, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The General Court is asked to

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission;

if the judgment is upheld, set the correct level of compensation; and

order the respondent to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With the above appeal, the appellant asks the General Court to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission, ordering the Commission to pay to the respondent compensation for non-material damage amounting to EUR 90 000 and to bear all the costs.

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on the following grounds of appeal:

-     infringement of Articles 90 to 91 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities ('the Staff Regulations') and the principle of legal certainty in that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by ruling that the claim brought by the respondent should be deemed to be an action for damages, without stating any reasons whatsoever;

-     error in law and defective statement of reasons, in that the Civil Service Tribunal considered that the action for damages was brought in good time, and ruled that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings was in breach of the presumption of innocence;

-     infringement of Community law, error in law and defective statement of reasons, in that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to apply the principle of law requiring a 'sufficiently serious infringement' and did not explain why a departure from the existing case law would be necessary in the present case;

-     infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, error in law and defective statement of reasons in that the Civil Service Tribunal considered that the appointing authority was obliged to provide immediate assistance to the respondent without prior investigation and before expiry of the period of four months under that article for responding to requests;

-     manifest error in law and in the statement of reasons in that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled that the Commission, first, is responsible for the alleged leaks to the press and, second, erred in initiating disciplinary proceedings;

-     infringement of the principle of proportionality and error in law, in that the Civil Service Tribunal awarded in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the respondent compensation amounting to EUR 90 000.

____________