Appeal brought on 14 January 2008 by Marta Andreasen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, Andreasen v Commission

(Case T-17/08 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marta Andreasen (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by B. Marthoz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, rule on the dispute and grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance, including the claim for damages;

order the defendant in the appeal to pay the costs;

order the European Commission to pay all the costs and expenses;

in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal and reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In her appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action, first, for the annulment of the decision of 30 October 2004 by which the Commission removed her from her post as a disciplinary measure without any reduction of her pension rights and, second, the claim for damages should be set aside.

In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward five pleas.

First of all, she claims that the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in that it did not carry out a review of the legality and of the proportionality of the decision contested at first instance in relation to the application of that provision in the light of the circumstances of the present case and the appellant's particular situation owing to the nature of the tasks which she performed.

The second plea is based on the alleged infringement of the principles of the legality of Community acts, of the temporal application of Community acts and of legal certainty in that the Civil Service Tribunal did not state grounds for its judgment on the issues relating to the application, in the present case, of the rules contained in the old and new Staff Regulations.

Further, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal misinterpreted the facts submitted for its assessment.

She also pleads an error of assessment and an infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of Articles 11, 12, 17 and 21 of the Staff Regulations in that it did not provide adequate grounds in law for its judgment to the extent that it approved the application of those provisions as effected by the decision contested at first instance.

Lastly, the appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal also infringed the principles recognised in Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

____________