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 62015TN0698

    Case T-698/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2015 by Juha Tapio Silvan against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015 in Case F-83/14, Silvan v Commission

    OJ C 59, 15.2.2016, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    15.2.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 59/28

    Appeal brought on 2 December 2015 by Juha Tapio Silvan against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015 in Case F-83/14, Silvan v Commission

    (Case T-698/15 P)

    (2016/C 059/31)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Appellant: Juha Tapio Silvan (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

    Form of order sought by the appellant

    The appellant claims that the Court should:

    —

    order

    —

    that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2015 in Case F-83/14 (Tapio Silvan v Commission) is set aside;

    —

    give judgment again and

    —

    order

    —

    that the decision not to promote the appellant is annulled;

    —

    the Commission to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

    Grounds of appeal and main arguments

    In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

    1.

    First ground of appeal, relating to the admissibility of the pleas in law relied on and of the evidence adduced, which is divided into two parts:

    —

    the first part, alleging a breach of procedural rules and an error of law by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in the declaration of inadmissibility of the plea in law alleging that the appointing authority failed to carry out a comparative assessment of the merits;

    —

    the second part, alleging an error in law by the CST in its failure to assess the evidence submitted by the applicant showing the lack of a comparative assessment of the merits by the appointing authority at every stage of the promotion procedure.

    2.

    Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 45 and the lack of a comparative assessment of the merits, which is divided in two parts:

    —

    the first part, alleging, first, an error in law by the CST in the context of the analysis of the documents submitted and the distortion of the clear sense of the evidence submitted by the parties, the lack of effective judicial review by the CST and failure to state reasons, and, secondly, an error of assessment, failure to state reasons, lack of effective judicial review by the CST and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence.

    —

    The second part alleging, first, an error in law in assessing the pleas set out by the appellant in that the CST held that the appellant had not raised a plea of illegality of the general implementing provisions C(2011) 8190 of Article 45 of the Statute, adopted by the European Commission on 14 November 2011, in that no comparative assessment is provided for at the stage of joint committee on promotions, and, second, an error of assessment and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence submitted.

    3.

    Third ground of appeal, alleging an error of assessment in the context of the analysis of the merits, which is divided in two parts:

    —

    the first part, alleging the error in law by the CST in assessing the burden of proof;

    —

    the second part, alleging the error of assessment and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence submitted.
    Top