This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0228
Case T-228/11 P: Appeal on 26 April 2011 by Florence Barbin against the judgment of 15 February 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament
Case T-228/11 P: Appeal on 26 April 2011 by Florence Barbin against the judgment of 15 February 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament
Case T-228/11 P: Appeal on 26 April 2011 by Florence Barbin against the judgment of 15 February 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament
OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.7.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 211/26 |
Appeal on 26 April 2011 by Florence Barbin against the judgment of 15 February 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament
(Case T-228/11 P)
2011/C 211/56
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
Forms of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament, dismissing the action by the appellant; |
|
— |
annul the decision of 10 November 2008 not to promote the appellant to Grade AD12 in the 2006 promotions year; |
|
— |
order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
By this appeal, the appellant seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament, in which the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed her action for the annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 10 November 2008 not to promote her to Grade AD12 in the promotion year 2006.
In support of her appeal, the appellant makes two pleas in law, claiming:
|
— |
error of law in that the Civil Service Tribunal wrongly took the view that the Parliament did not make a manifest error of assessment in deciding, first, that the latter was not required to comply with the internal rules on staff reports and promotions, and, second, that it could lawfully promote officials having fewer merit points than the appellant on the strength of grounds not taking account of the system for comparing the respective merits of officials eligible for promotion such as that established by the decisions of the Bureau and the Secretary General of the European Parliament; |
|
— |
infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the obligation of the Parliament to prove that the appellant suffered no discrimination on account of exercising her right to parental leave. |