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 62015TN0557

Case T-557/15 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2015 by Fernando De Esteban Alonso against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2015 in Case F-35/15, De Esteban Alonso v Commission

IO C 371, 9.11.2015, p. 44–45 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

9.11.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/44

Appeal brought on 16 September 2015 by Fernando De Esteban Alonso against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2015 in Case F-35/15, De Esteban Alonso v Commission

(Case T-557/15 P)

(2015/C 371/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (Saint-Martin-de-Seignanx, France) (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside order F-35/15 of 15 July 2015, by which the President of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal dismissed his application;

—

set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 November 2014, received on 3 December 2014, rejecting Complaint No R/865/14 brought by the appellant on 5 August 2014;

—

order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 17  242,51, adjusted to the sum of EUR 24  242,51 on the date of the appeal;

—

order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3  000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs, to be adjusted if necessary, and to pay all 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 a denial of justice, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) gave its decision by means of an order, without permitting a fresh exchange of pleadings or a public hearing.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the rights of defence, in that the CST gave its decision by means of an order, without permitting a fresh exchange of pleadings or a public hearing.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law, in that the CST added a new condition to the conditions laid down for institutional assistance by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
Top