Appeal brought on 27 December 2006 against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October 2006 in Case F-114/05, Philippe Combescot v Commission

(Case T-414/06 P)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Combescot (Lecce, Italy) (represented by A. Maritati and V. Messa, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

reverse the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 October 2006 in Case F-114/05 by declaring at the outset that the action is admissible in that it was brought in good time and in that it is based on the interest possessed by the official in obtaining judicial protection;

recognise that, on account of the measure adopted, Mr Philippe Combescot has suffered non-material damage, both to his health and to his image, with serious consequences for his mental stability;

order that Mr Combescot be paid the sum of EUR 150 000 by way of compensation for damage;

order the Commission to pay the costs and charges incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 October 2006 in Case F-114/05, by which the action was declared to be inadmissible on the grounds that it had been brought out of time and that the applicant had no legal interest in bringing proceedings.

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges:

misinterpretation of Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations, with particular reference to the definition of the expression "rejected [...] by implied decision", in that the judgment under appeal - for the purposes of determining the time-limits for contesting the rejection - assimilated the express decision adopted within the time-limits, but not communicated, to the implied decision of rejection. According to the appellant, the judgment at first instance refrains from addressing the crucial issue in the dispute: an express decision of rejection, adopted within the time-limits laid down in the Staff Regulations, exists for all intents and purposes, even if it is not communicated to the person concerned.

aside from other considerations, in the case in question, the unacceptable delay in communicating the decision can in no way be imputed to the appellant. On this point, too, the Tribunal failed to carry out an adequate evaluation - even in terms of procedural correctness - of the contentions of the defendant concerning the difficulty of identifying the official's place of residence.

that, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of bringing the action the appellant had already retired, he had an interest in bringing proceedings to establish the unlawfulness of the transfer in question and he continues to possess such an interest, in that his application for compensation for non-material and professional damage is predicated upon establishing the unlawfulness of the contested measure.

____________