EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0693
Case T-693/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission
Case T-693/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission
Case T-693/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission
OJ C 441, 28.11.2016, p. 27–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
28.11.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 441/27 |
Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission
(Case T-693/16 P)
(2016/C 441/32)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: HG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15; |
— |
in consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly,
|
— |
order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant invokes four grounds.
1. |
First ground, concerning the appellant’s financial liability, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) failed to rule on one of the complaints of the appellant concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the CST committed several errors of law and distorted the evidence in the case file. |
2. |
Second ground, alleging procedural defects in the preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the contested decision, infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, breach of the obligation to state reasons and errors of law committed by the CST. |
3. |
Third ground, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons on the part of the Commission and the CST. |
4. |
Fourth ground, alleging that the CST erred in law and fact in relation to the first complaint upheld against the appellant. Furthermore, the CST disregarded its obligation to provide reasons. |