This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0365
Case T-365/11 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2011 by AO against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 April 2011 in Case F-45/10 AO v Commission
Case T-365/11 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2011 by AO against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 April 2011 in Case F-45/10 AO v Commission
Case T-365/11 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2011 by AO against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 April 2011 in Case F-45/10 AO v Commission
SL C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 27–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
24.9.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 282/27 |
Appeal brought on 5 July 2011 by AO against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 April 2011 in Case F-45/10 AO v Commission
(Case T-365/11 P)
2011/C 282/56
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: AO (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Lewisch, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellant
— |
Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 April 2011 in Case F-45/10 AO v Commission; |
— |
In case the General Court is in the position to decide the case on the merits to give the same form of order as sought at first instance, i.e. to:
|
— |
Order the other party to the proceedings to pay all 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 conditions for a decision by order in accordance with Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal were not met and that the action was not manifestly bound to fail, as:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the order in case F-45/10 infringes European Union law as described under Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as the applicant is entitled to compensation since harassment took place. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging the Civil Service Tribunal violated the right of the applicant to a hearing, as provided in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as in Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
(1) Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, as amended (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962, p. 135)