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 62015TN0395

    Case T-395/15 P: Appeal brought on 14 July 2015 by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in joined cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, CJ v ECDC

    OJ C 311, 21.9.2015, p. 55–56 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    21.9.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 311/55

    Appeal brought on 14 July 2015 by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in joined cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, CJ v ECDC

    (Case T-395/15 P)

    (2015/C 311/60)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, agents, D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

    Other party to the proceedings: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece)

    Form of order sought by the appellant

    The appellant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29/04/2015 in joined cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, in respect of the plea challenged in the appeal, and

    —

    to order the Respondent to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the appeal, the Appellant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging an error in law on behalf of the Civil Service Tribunal with regards to the scope of the right to be heard.

    —

    Without relying on any case-law nor providing specific reasoning, the Civil Service Tribunal adopted an extensive interpretation of the scope of the right to be heard, applicable not only to allegations made vis-à-vis an individual, but also to the consequences ascribed to the behavior of that individual. Besides, the approach taken by the Civil Service Tribunal as to the scope of the right to be heard is contradicted by its very findings in the contested judgment.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging an error of law on behalf of the Tribunal in the conclusion it reached further to the assessment as to whether in the absence of this alleged irregularity, the procedure might have led to a different result.

    —

    The Civil Service Tribunal having acknowledged that the relationship of trust between the Respondent and the Appellant was irreparably broken, the absence of the alleged irregularity would not have led to a different result.
    Top