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 62016TN0686

Case T-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex

OJ C 428, 21.11.2016, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.11.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/19

Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex

(Case T-686/16 P)

(2016/C 428/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by S. Pappas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 dismissing his action;

—

grant the claims sought at first instance;

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay all of the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

1.

First ground of appeal, divided into two limbs, alleging infringement of Article 11(4), (5) and (6) of the decision of the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’) of 27 August 2009 establishing the staff appraisal procedure (‘decision of 27 August 2009’), interpreted in the light of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

—

First limb, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in failing to examine the plea, relied on at first instance by the appellant, relating to the lack of prior dialogue between the validator and the evaluator.

—

Second limb, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the order under appeal by failing to examine, of its own motion, the lack of prior dialogue between the validator and the evaluator.

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of the decision of 27 August 2009 by failing to have regard for the difference in role between evaluator and validator as established within Frontex.
Top