This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0686
Case T-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex
Case T-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex
Case T-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex
IO C 428, 21.11.2016, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
21.11.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 428/19 |
Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex
(Case T-686/16 P)
(2016/C 428/22)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by S. Pappas, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 dismissing his action; |
— |
grant the claims sought at first instance; |
— |
order the other party to the proceedings to pay all of the costs. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.
1. |
First ground of appeal, divided into two limbs, alleging infringement of Article 11(4), (5) and (6) of the decision of the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’) of 27 August 2009 establishing the staff appraisal procedure (‘decision of 27 August 2009’), interpreted in the light of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
|
2. |
Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of the decision of 27 August 2009 by failing to have regard for the difference in role between evaluator and validator as established within Frontex. |