This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0734
Case T-734/15 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission
Case T-734/15 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission
Case T-734/15 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission
IO C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 36–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
22.2.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 68/36 |
Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission
(Case T-734/15 P)
(2016/C 068/46)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings: FE (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission; |
— |
dismiss the action brought by FE in Case F-119/14 as unfounded; |
— |
decide that each of the parties is to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings; |
— |
order FE to pay the costs of the proceedings brought before the Civil Service Tribunal. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.
1. |
First ground, alleging a number of errors of law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) and a distortion of the documents in the file in the selection board’s interpretation and application of the condition for admission relating to minimum professional experience. |
2. |
Second ground, alleging an error of law in the CST’s conclusion that the Appointing Authority committed a manifest error of assessment. |
3. |
Third ground, alleging an error of law and a number of breaches of the obligation to state reasons committed by the CST in ordering the Commission to pay EUR 10 000 to the applicant at first instance. |