This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0352
Case T-352/13 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2013 by BX against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-88/11 BX v Commission
Case T-352/13 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2013 by BX against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-88/11 BX v Commission
Case T-352/13 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2013 by BX against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-88/11 BX v Commission
OJ C 252, 31.8.2013, p. 39–40
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 252, 31.8.2013, p. 25–26
(HR)
31.8.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 252/39 |
Appeal brought on 2 July 2013 by BX against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-88/11 BX v Commission
(Case T-352/13 P)
2013/C 252/67
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: BX (Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
Set aside the judgment of Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013, in Case F-88/11; |
— |
Annul the contested decision of the Selection Board not to include the name of the appellant on the reserve list of successful candidates in the competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO (OJ 2009 C 14 A, p. 1); and |
— |
Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging the Civil Service Tribunal’s finding (at paragraph 33 of its judgment) implying that the appellant did not meet the standard of proof is not applicable in the case at hand. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal made an error in law when stating that a candidate whose initial mark was below the passing mark in accordance with pre-established criteria, is not entitled to a comparative assessment (paragraph 41), as:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the finding of the Civil Service Tribunal, at paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal, according to which the principle of equal treatment has not been infringed, is incorrect. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules concerning the composition of the Selection Board, as:
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in its decision that the circumstances of the present case do not warrant application of Article 87(2) of its Rules of Procedure (paragraph 81), since the defendant conceded that the rejection of the appellant's previous administrative complaints were based on an erroneous motivation and therefore the defendant should bear the costs. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the moral damages were justified. |