This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0595
Case T-595/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by A against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 September 2011 in Case F-12/09, A v Commission
Case T-595/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by A against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 September 2011 in Case F-12/09, A v Commission
Case T-595/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by A against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 September 2011 in Case F-12/09, A v Commission
OJ C 49, 18.2.2012, p. 25–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.2.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 49/25 |
Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by A against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 September 2011 in Case F-12/09, A v Commission
(Case T-595/11 P)
2012/C 49/46
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: A (Port-Vendres, France) (represented by B. Cambier, A. Paternostre and L. Levi, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellant
— |
Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 14 September 2011 in Case F-12/09; |
— |
Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellant at first instance and, accordingly,
|
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 infringement of the right to action within a reasonable time, of the principle of the duty of care, of the principle of legitimate expectations and distortion of the file. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to full compensation for the loss suffered. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging, firstly, infringement of Articles 73 and 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the principles of sound administration, procedural economy, non-retroactivity, hierarchy of norms and the concept of consolidation and, secondly, distortion of the facts and of the appellant’s arguments. |