7.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/72


Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by European External Action Service (EEAS) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14

(Case T-278/15 P)

(2015/C 294/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: KL (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2015 in Case F-51/14;

uphold the claims it submitted at first instance;

order the defendant to the appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law, some of which concern the staff appraisal system and others of which concern the promotion system.

The appraisal system

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof, breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and breach of the appellant’s rights of the defence.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the limits of judicial review. The appellant submits that, in the judgment under appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal has exceeded the limits of its power of judicial review several times, and appears to be seeking to oblige it to adopt a particular system of staff appraisal.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the Tribunal erred in law in finding that an appraisal system not based on marks lacks objectivity, and infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

The promotion system

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the rule against ruling ultra petita and of the appellant’s rights of the defence.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal erred in law in finding that the appellant had infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.