This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0512
Case T-512/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2013 by AN against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-111/10 AN v Commission
Case T-512/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2013 by AN against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-111/10 AN v Commission
Case T-512/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2013 by AN against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-111/10 AN v Commission
OJ C 367, 14.12.2013, p. 31–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.12.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 367/31 |
Appeal brought on 20 September 2013 by AN against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-111/10 AN v Commission
(Case T-512/13 P)
2013/C 367/55
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: AN (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, avocats)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013 in Case F-111/10 AN v Commission; |
|
— |
refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay all of the costs at first instance and at appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons when the Civil Service Tribunal examined the plea submitted at first instance relating to the unlawfulness of the inquiry directed against the appellant, since the statement of reasons put forward by the Civil Service Tribunal in paragraphs 95 and 96 of the judgment under appeal is erroneous or at the very least inadequate and incomplete. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging distortion by the Civil Service Tribunal of the facts and evidence both when the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appellant enjoyed the protection provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and when the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appellant had not put forward any evidence that the administrative inquiry directed against it was initiated by way of retaliation (concerning paragraphs 87, 88 and 94 of the judgment under appeal). |