Appeal brought on 25 February 2008 by Asa Sundholm against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07 Sundholm v Commission
(Case T-102/08 P)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought by the appellant
quash the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07;
give judgment again and do what the first court ought to have done: annul the decision drawing up the applicant's Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005;
order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In her appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) dismissing the action by which she sought the annulment of the Commission's decision drawing up her Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, since the first report for that period was annulled by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005.
1 In support of her appeal the appellant puts forward a single plea in law alleging an error of law, infringement of Article 233 EC and failure to comply with Community law in relation to the special obligation to state reasons.
She claims that the CST erred in law by disregarding the scope of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 and of Article 233 EC in holding that the Appointing Authority was not required, when taking the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and in taking account of its grounds and the time lapse between the annulled decision and that adopted pursuant to that judgment, to provide a more extensive statement of reasons in respect of the obligation on the administration to state reasons in a specific manner for a Development Report drawn up pursuant to a judgment of the Court of First Instance and, according to the appellant, out of time.
In addition, she submits that the CST disregarded the force of res judicata with absolute effect of a judgment of the Court of First Instance by accepting that the mere deletion of the comments unlawfully taken into consideration constitutes a fair rectification of the evaluation of the appellant.
____________1 - Case T-86/04 Sundholm v Commission, not published in the ECR.