Appeal brought on 23 February 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission

(Case T-56/07 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-St-Etienne, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds the first two pleas in law alleging illegality of the appointment procedure and breach of Article 29(1) and Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and annuls the appointment of another person to the post of Head of Unit "Biotechnology and applied genomics" and, consequently, the rejection of the applicant's candidature for that post;

itself give judgment in the dispute, uphold the pleas submitted by the defendant at first instance and, accordingly, dismiss the application in Case F-122/05;

in the alternative, refer the case beck to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision on the remaining pleas;

order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings and also to bear his own costs before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment of 14 December 2006 which the appellant now seeks to have set aside, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled the Commission's decision of 23 December 2004 appointing another candidate to a post as Head of Unit and, consequently, rejecting the applicant's candidature.

In support of its application to have that judgment set aside, the Commission raises three pleas in law, the first of which alleges incorrect application of the Kratz ¹decision in the present case in so far as the new rules applicable, including the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations and the Commission's "Middle Management" decision ², are different from those which were applicable in Kratz, a consideration which the Tribunal failed to take into account.

The second plea put forward by the Commission alleges a contradiction in the grounds of the judgment under appeal, in that the Tribunal found, first of all, that the principle of separation of functions and grade was relevant, that the post could be filled solely by transfer, the grade being automatically that of the candidate chosen on the date of appointment, whereas it then concluded that posts must be published by pairs of two grades.

Third, the Commission contends that if the obligation to publish posts as Head of Unit according to specific pairs of grades, as imposed on the institutions by the judgment under appeal, were to be upheld, the applicant at first instance would not have an interest in bringing proceedings and his action ought therefore to be dismissed as inadmissible. In the Commission's submission, the judgment under appeal thus exceeds the subject-matter of the application at first instance.

____________

¹ - Case T-10/94 Kratz v Commission [1995] ECR II-1455.

² - Commission Decision C (2004) 1597 of 28 April 2004 relating to the middle management, published in Administrative Notices No 73/2004 of 23 June 2004.