12.10.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/26


Appeal brought on 28 July 2015 by Jaana Pohjanmäki against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 May 2015 in Case F-44/14, Pohjanmäki v Council

(Case T-410/15 P)

(2015/C 337/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jaana Pohjanmäki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of 18 May 2015 in Case F-44/14 and itself give judgment on the case;

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

order the Council to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eight pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts and evidence, as well as infringement of the right of the defence, in so far as the assessment of the appellant’s merits was not performed carefully and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts and evidence, in so far as the members of the Advisory Committee on Promotion were not aware of the appellant’s staff reports during the reference period.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’), since it considered that the appellant’s merits had been compared with those of officials in linguists’ roles.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law on the part of the CST, since it found that the appointing authority had legitimately reviewed the appellant’s situation.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of arms, in so far as certain important aspects of the dispute were not discussed.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST accepted the defendant’s view that the appellant’s level of merit was not consistently high.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging an error of law and distortion of the evidence, since the CST held that the appellant’s level of responsibility had been assessed in accordance with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST held that the defendant had supplemented its statement of reasons at the hearing, when in fact it had substituted its statement of reasons.