EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0668
Case T-668/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2016 by HL against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-112/15 HL v Commission
Case T-668/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2016 by HL against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-112/15 HL v Commission
Case T-668/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2016 by HL against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-112/15 HL v Commission
OJ C 441, 28.11.2016, p. 22–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
28.11.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 441/22 |
Appeal brought on 19 September 2016 by HL against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-112/15 HL v Commission
(Case T-668/16 P)
(2016/C 441/26)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: HL (Brussels, Belgium) (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 20 July 2016 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-112/15; |
— |
annul the decision of 14 November 2014 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission, issued by means of the Administrative Notice No 41-2014, establishing the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014 in so far as the name of the appellant is not included therein; |
— |
order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the appellant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging errors of law in rejecting the applicant’s first plea as unfounded. The appellant argues that the Civil Service Tribunal committed four main errors with regards to his first plea in law:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, the appellant argues that the Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law with regards to his second plea in law:
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging a failure to conduct an impartial and effective judicial review, giving rise to a violation of the appellant’s right to an effective remedy, the appellant argues that:
|