Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62011TN0642

    Case T-642/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament

    OJ C 49, 18.2.2012, p. 30–31 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    08/12/2011
    Date lodged:
    08/12/2011
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    18.2.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 49/30

    Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament

    (Case T-642/11 P)

    2012/C 49/55

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische, and M. Velardo, lawyers)

    Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

    Form of order sought by the appellant

    —

    Set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament and, to the extent possible based on the facts before the Court deliver judgment, and:

    —

    Annul the Parliament’s decision of 4 October 2004 in so far as it determines the appellant’s grading;

    —

    Order the Parliament to make good any damage caused (including damages to his career, legal and regular pay, immaterial damages, with default interest etc.);

    —

    Order the Parliament to pay the cost of these proceedings and those before the Civil Service Tribunal.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in declaring the action inadmissible for having been lodged out of time.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in ruling that the action is inadmissible because it would not have been liable to procure any advantage to the appellant, and thus he did not have an interest in bringing the action.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to rule on the pleas raised on the merits of the application, in particular the infringement of Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations (1).

    (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1)

    Top