This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0269
Case T-269/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2013 by Markus Brune against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11 Brune v Commission
Case T-269/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2013 by Markus Brune against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11 Brune v Commission
Case T-269/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2013 by Markus Brune against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11 Brune v Commission
IO C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 45–46
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
IO C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 11–11
(HR)
20.7.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 207/45 |
Appeal brought on 19 May 2013 by Markus Brune against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11 Brune v Commission
(Case T-269/13 P)
2013/C 207/76
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Markus Brune (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by H. Mannes, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellant
In addition to maintaining the form of order sought at first instance, the appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for determination; |
— |
order the respondent/defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings at first instance. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies in particular on the following pleas in law:
1. |
Defects in the assessment of the obligation to repeat the test
|
2. |
Failure to consider alternative solutions
|
3. |
In the alternative: erroneous assessment of the procedural defects in the preparation of the new test
|
4. |
Erroneous dismissal of the appellant’s third, fourth and fifth heads of claim as inadmissible
|
5. |
Discriminatory costs decision |
The judgment under appeal discriminates against the appellant in comparison with the applicant in Case F-42/11 Honnefelder v Commission, in so far as the Tribunal failed to assess what was deemed in that case to be a relevant circumstance for the purposes of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure in a manner favourable to the appellant.