Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012TA0167

    Case T-167/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Professional development — Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group — Distortion of evidence)

    OJ C 344, 23.11.2013, p. 54–54 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    23.11.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 344/54


    Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY

    (Case T-167/12 P) (1)

    (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Professional development - Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group - Distortion of evidence)

    2013/C 344/96

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

    Other party: AY (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

    Re:

    Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking the partial annulment of that judgment.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote AY to AST grade 9 pursuant to the 2010 promotion procedure and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all of the costs (points 1 and 4 of the operative part of that judgment).

    2.

    Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

    3.

    Reserves the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 180, 27.7.2012.


    Top