Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62014TN0792

Case T-792/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Eric Vanhalewyn against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS

OJ C 46, 9.2.2015, p. 57–57 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

9.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/57

Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Eric Vanhalewyn against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS

(Case T-792/14 P)

(2015/C 046/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Eric Vanhalewyn (Grand Baie, Mauritius) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS;

—

give judgment itself:

—

annulling the contested decision;

—

ordering the EEAS to pay the costs of both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It results from the appeal that the appellant applies to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS.

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) held, first, that the failure, by the EEAS, to adopt the general provisions (‘GP’) of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the regulations’) was justified by the fact that the EEAS was still, as regards the application of that provision, in an adjustment period and, secondly, that the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt the GP can be successfully invoked by the appellant only where he shows that the EEAS applied that provision arbitrarily.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the EEAS had correctly reasoned the contested decision although the reasons which led the EEAS to diverge from the negative opinion of the Staff Committee were not set out.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law since it held that the EEAS could, in the absence of GP, take into account other parameters than those provided for by the regulations in order to assess the severity of the difficulty of the conditions of life in the places of employment of officials outside the European Union.
Top