10.10.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 371/22 |
Appeal brought on 10 August 2016 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV, CC v Parliament
(Case T-446/16 P)
(2016/C 371/24)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: CC (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the General Court should:
— |
declare the appeal admissible and well-founded; |
— |
accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-9/12 RENV (CC v European Parliament), with the exception of paragraph 3 of the operative part relating to the costs; |
— |
accordingly, recognise the non-contractual liability of the European Parliament for the errors committed in the management of the appellant’s reserve list and the obligation to pay compensation for the loss suffered as a result; |
— |
accordingly, rule in accordance with the forms of order sought by the appellant in her application at first instance, |
— |
consequently, order:
|
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six grounds.
1. |
First ground, alleging an error of law based on the plea of inadmissibility of further offers of evidence;
|
2. |
Second ground, alleging an error of law in the absence of legal classification of and reasons for the decision of the Secretary-General of 19 May 2005 and failure to comply with the annulling judgment of the General Court of the European Union;
|
3. |
Third ground, alleging distortion of the facts as to the mail of EPSO. |
4. |
Fourth ground, alleging distortion of the content of the letter of 15 October 2007 of the Parliament in relation to the allegation that the appellant was informed as to the destruction of her competition file. |
5. |
Fifth ground, alleging an error of law as regards the legal classification of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2003. |
6. |
Sixth ground, alleging failure to comply with the annulling judgment in relation to the calculation of loss. |