Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62015TN0152

Case T-152/15 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission

IO C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.6.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/21

Appeal brought on 31 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission

(Case T-152/15 P)

(2015/C 190/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Curral and G. Gattinara, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

—

Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 January 2015 in Joined Cases F-1/14 and F-48/14, Kakol v Commission;

—

Refer Case F-48/14 back to the Civil Service Tribunal, the appellant having withdrawn its action in Case F-1/14;

—

Reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) erred in law in having held, where the conditions for admissions are ‘similar’, a jury is required to give reasons for the decision and not to admit a candidate to the tests on the basis of the assessment carried out by another jury for another competition in respect of the same candidate.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the requirement to give reasons, the CST having recognised that the nationality of the candidates was a condition for admission, in addition to others, but which, despite that, was not capable of creating a difference between the two opinions of the competitions in question.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the distortion of an essential matter in the case file, the CST having considered that the jury did not explain how its decision was different from that of the previous jury, even though the Commission had clearly set out that reasoning, both in its written submissions and at the hearing.
Top