Appeal brought on 10 May 2010 by P against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 24 February 2010 in Case F-89/08 P v Parliament

(Case T-213/10 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: P (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

declare the appeal admissible and well founded and, therefore

annul the judgment under appeal delivered on 24 February 2010 by the Third Chamber of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-89/08, notified to the appellant on 1 March 2010, by which the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed as unfounded the appellant's action seeking, inter alia, the annulment of the Parliament's decision of 15 April 2008 to dismiss him and an order against the Parliament for damages and interest for the loss which he claims to have suffered;

uphold the claims which the appellant submitted to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

order the respondent to pay the costs at both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant is seeking the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 February 2010, delivered in Case F-89/08 P v Parliament, which dismissed the action by which the appellant had sought, inter alia, the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament to terminate his temporary agent contract, and payment of damages and interest as compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.

In support of his appeal, the appellant submits three pleas alleging:

an error of law and contradictory reasoning inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal considers that becoming aware of the grounds for a decision solely by consulting one's personal file is adequate and does not lead to the annulment of the decision, despite the fact that the institution did not set out those grounds in the decision to dismiss or in the decision rejecting the complaint;

a misunderstanding by the Civil Service Tribunal (i) of the system of separation of powers and institutional equilibrium between the administration and the Courts, (ii) of the right to effective judicial protection, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal assumed the role of the European Parliament by stating, in its place, the alleged reasons for the decision which was contested before the Tribunal;

a lack of adequate reasoning in the judgment under appeal, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal did not comment on the fact that the documents on the file, leading to the decision which was contested before it, were contradictory, despite the fact that the appellant had raised those inconsistencies in his action at first instance.

____________