DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE (Reviewing Chamber)
17 September 2018. ( *1 )
(Review)
In Case C‑543/18 RX,
PROPOSAL for review made by the First Advocate General, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on 20 August 2018,
THE COURT (Reviewing Chamber),
composed of M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, C. Toader, A. Prechal and E. Jarašiūnas, Judges,
makes the following
Decision
1 |
The proposal for review made by the First Advocate General concerns the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 July 2018, HG v Commission (T‑693/16 P, not published, EU:T:2018:492). By that judgment, the General Court annulled the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016, HG v Commission (F‑149/15, EU:F:2016:155), by which the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s action seeking, first, the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 10 February 2015 imposing on him the disciplinary penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a period of 18 months and requiring him to pay compensation for damage sustained by the Commission in the amount of EUR 108 596.35, and second, as appropriate, the decision rejecting the complaint, and second, an order that the Commission pay compensation for the harm allegedly suffered. |
2 |
The General Court held that the composition of the panel of judges of the Civil Service Tribunal which had delivered the judgment at first instance had been irregular. |
3 |
It follows from Article 256(2) TFEU that decisions given by the General Court on appeal against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where there is a serious risk that the unity or consistency of EU law may be affected. |
4 |
Pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where the First Advocate General considers that there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of European Union law being affected, he may propose that the Court review the decision of the General Court. |
5 |
In that regard, it is clear from Article 193(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court that the Reviewing Chamber of the Court, where it has before it such a proposal to review, is to decide whether the decision of the General Court is to be reviewed and that, when that is the case, the decision to review the decision of the General Court is to indicate the questions which are to be reviewed. |
6 |
In the present case, the Reviewing Chamber considers it necessary to review the judgment of 19 July 2018, HG v Council, (T‑693/16 P, not published, EU:T:2018:492). |
7 |
The question which is to be reviewed is set out in point 2 of the operative part of the present decision. |
On those grounds, the Court (Reviewing Chamber) decides: |
|
|
|
[Signatures] |
( *1 ) Language of the case: French.