Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62015FN0016

Case F-16/15: Action brought on 30 January 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission

OJ C 96, 23.3.2015, p. 27–28 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.3.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/27

Action brought on 30 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-16/15)

(2015/C 096/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to change the description of the type of post held by the applicants in the Sysper 2 application and not to include them in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the promotion round for 2014.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim, primarily, that the Tribunal should:

—

declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex I thereto and the corresponding transitional measures to be unlawful;

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

—

annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

In the alternative, the applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files contained in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

—

annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.
Top