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 62012TN0406

    Case T-406/12 P: Appeal brought on 21 March 2013 by BG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 July 2012 in Case F-54/11, BG v Ombudsman

    IO C 156, 1.6.2013, p. 44–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    21/03/2013
    Date lodged:
    21/03/2013
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Fraincis
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Link

    1.6.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 156/44

    Appeal brought on 21 March 2013 by BG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 July 2012 in Case F-54/11, BG v Ombudsman

    (Case T-406/12 P)

    2013/C 156/82

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Appellant: BG (Strasbourg, France) (represented by L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

    Form of order sought by the appellant

    —

    Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 17 July 2012 in Case F-54/11;

    —

    In consequence, grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance and, accordingly,

    —

    Principally, order that, with retroactive effect to the effective date of the dismissal decision, the applicant be restored to her post of administrator at grade A5, step 2 and order payment of the amounts due to her for that entire period, together with late-payment interest at the ECB rate increased by two points;

    —

    In the alternative, award the sum corresponding to the remuneration which she would have received since the effective date of her dismissal in August 2010 until the month in which she reaches retirement age, in July 2040, and put into order accordingly the applicant’s pension rights;

    —

    In any event, award the sum of EUR 65 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

    —

    Order the defendant to pay all the costs;

    —

    Order the defendant to pay all the costs at both instances.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging a distortion of the file at the time of the checks made by the CST of compliance with the disciplinary procedure and in particular an infringement of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, since the CST made an incorrect interpretation of the notion of ‘criminal proceedings’ (concerns paragraph 68 et seq. of the judgment under appeal).

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a failure to check compliance with the duty to state reasons and a distortion of the file, since the CST concluded that the Ombudsman did not breach the duty to state reasons, whereas he departed from the opinion of the Disciplinary Board (concerns paragraphs 102 and 103 of the judgment under appeal).

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging a failure to check any manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principle of proportionality and a distortion of the file, since the CST concluded that the Ombudsman did not infringe the principle of proportionality by imposing the most severe penalty provided for in the Staff Regulations on the applicant (concerns paragraphs 115 to 130 of the judgment under appeal).

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to check compliance with the principle of equal treatment as between men and women and a breach by the CST of the duty to state reasons, since the CST failed to examine whether the fact of the applicant’s pregnancy, a factor with which her conduct was connected, involved or constituted indirect discrimination of the applicant (concerns paragraphs 139 et seq. of the judgment under appeal).
    Top