Appeal brought on 21 December 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06, Berrisford v Commission

(Case T-473/07 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by D. Martin and K. Hermann, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Michael Berrisford (Brussels, Belgiím)

Form of order sought by the appellant

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 in so far as it holds, following the examination of the first part of the second plea, alleging failure to take any account of the fact that he had reached the promotion threshold two times but had not been promoted during the earlier exercises at first instance, that the Appointing Authority has therefore vitiated the consideration of the applicant's comparative merits at first instance with an error of law and, therefore, in this case, a manifest error of assessment;

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the Commission seeks partial annulment of the judgment of 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 Berrisford v Commission, by which the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled its decision not to include the applicant's name on the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure and dismissed the action with respect to the remainder of the applicant's forms of order.

In support of its appeal the Commission first puts forward two pleas alleging errors of law which it claims the CST committed in the contested judgment.

First, the Commission claims that the CST has infringed Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in so far as it laid down an obligation for the Appointing Authority to take account, by awarding extra points during the consideration of the applicant's merits, of the fact that he was put forward on two occasions by his directorate general in the procedure for 'reserve officials'.

The second error of law that the Commission complains of in the contested decision is an infringement of Article 13(1) and (3)(b) of General Implementing Provisions in that the CST failed to recognise that the applicant's situation in 2003 and 2004 had been implicitly taken into consideration when the AIPN awarded points as a merit aspect related to the length of time in his grade.

Finally, the Commission relies on a plea alleging that the reasoning of the contested decision is contradictory.

____________