This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014FB0118
Case F-118/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts — Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities — Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities — Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure — No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Case F-118/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts — Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities — Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities — Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure — No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Case F-118/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council (Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts — Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of measure adversely affecting a person — Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities — Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities — Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure — No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
OJ C 48, 8.2.2016, p. 99–99
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 16/12/2015
- Date lodged:
- 23/10/2014
- Author:
- Civil Service Tribunal
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- French
- Type of procedure:
- Staff cases - inadmissible
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62014FO0118
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
8.2.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 48/99 |
Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — Bärwinkel v Council
(Case F-118/14) (1)
((Civil service - Officials - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Transitional rules concerning assignment to types of posts - Article 30(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of measure adversely affecting a person - Decision recognising that certain officials hold special responsibilities - Non-inclusion of the applicant's name in the first list of 34 officials recognised as holding special responsibilities - Requirements referring to the pre-litigation procedure - No complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2016/C 048/114)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Wolfgang Bärwinkel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)
Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application for the annulment of Council decisions on the classification of officials in grades AD 9 to AD 14 occupying posts identified as holding special responsibilities in the type of post ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ before 31 December 2015 and not placing the applicant among the officials so classified.
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
|
2. |
Each party is to bear its own costs. |
(1) OJ C 26, 26/1/2015, p. 48.
