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 62011TN0644

Case T-644/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission

OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 14–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

3.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/14

Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Eugène Emile Kimman against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10 Kimman v Commission

(Case T-644/11 P)

2012/C 65/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Eugène Emile Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant clams that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-74/10;

—

consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance, namely:

—

annul the appellant’s 2008 Career Development Report;

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs;

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(8) of Annex I to the general rules for implementing Article 43 of the European Union Staff Regulations, distortion of the file and infringement of the review of manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging failure by the reporting officer to take account of the opinion of the ad hoc committee.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and of the burden of proof, and also infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of its obligation to state reasons in its examination of the plea alleging unlawful appeals procedure and failure to state reasons in the appraisal report challenged at first instance.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the review of the obligation to state reasons and manifest error of assessment, and also infringement of Article 4(6) of the general rules for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the plea alleging a failure to take account of the work performed by the appellant in the interest of the institution.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the file and disregard of the burden of proof and infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment in the Civil Service Tribunal’s examination of the reporting officer’s assessment of whether or not the appellant had complied with the alleged reorganisation of the department being tested since 2008.
Top