# C_2011340EN.01002402.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/24

---

Appeal brought on 18 July 2011 by L against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament

(Case T-317/10 P)

2011/C 340/51

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: L (Luxemburg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.), represented by Audrey Sèbe and Vytautas Sviderskis, lawyers

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 July 2010 in Joined Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08 L v European Parliament;

L

European Parliament

| — | uphold, as being well founded in whole or in part, the pleas put forward by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold, as being well founded in whole or in part, the pleas put forward by the appellant at first instance;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant sets out eight grounds:

| 1. | The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the concept of ‘decision taken in response to the complaint’ (‘décision prise en réponse à la réclamation’). In the view of the appellant, the decision taken on 10 July 2007 by the authority of the European Parliament empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) was incorrectly held to be a new decision dismissing the appellant and setting aside the first dismissal decision, as it did not re-establish the situation which existed before the first decision was adopted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first ground of appeal alleges misinterpretation of the concept of ‘decision taken in response to the complaint’ (‘décision prise en réponse à la réclamation’). In the view of the appellant, the decision taken on 10 July 2007 by the authority of the European Parliament empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) was incorrectly held to be a new decision dismissing the appellant and setting aside the first dismissal decision, as it did not re-establish the situation which existed before the first decision was adopted.

| 2. | The second ground of appeal relates to the inadmissibility of the decision of the AECE of 13 February 2008 by which the appellant’s second complaint was rejected, on the ground that the appellant did not receive that decision until 27 February 2008, that is to say, after the appellant had submitted his third application on 25 February 2008. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second ground of appeal relates to the inadmissibility of the decision of the AECE of 13 February 2008 by which the appellant’s second complaint was rejected, on the ground that the appellant did not receive that decision until 27 February 2008, that is to say, after the appellant had submitted his third application on 25 February 2008.

| 3. | The third ground of appeal alleges breach of the right of defence. In the appellant’s view, the finding of the Civil Service Tribunal that that principle does not apply in the case where a temporary employment contract based on mutual trust has been terminated is contrary to the case-law of the European Union Courts and to the findings of the International Labour Organisation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third ground of appeal alleges breach of the right of defence. In the appellant’s view, the finding of the Civil Service Tribunal that that principle does not apply in the case where a temporary employment contract based on mutual trust has been terminated is contrary to the case-law of the European Union Courts and to the findings of the International Labour Organisation.

| 4. | The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued the consequences of the breach of Article 10 of the Parliament’s internal rules [on the recruitment of officials and other servants] by ruling that the dismissal decision could not be set aside on grounds of breach of the duty of prior notification of the Staff Committee. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth ground of appeal alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued the consequences of the breach of Article 10 of the Parliament’s internal rules [on the recruitment of officials and other servants] by ruling that the dismissal decision could not be set aside on grounds of breach of the duty of prior notification of the Staff Committee.

| 5. | The fifth ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of impartiality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth ground of appeal alleges infringement of the principle of impartiality.

| 6. | The sixth ground of appeal alleges breach of the duty to give reasons, as, in the appellant’s view, no reasons whatsoever were given for the decision of 10 July 2007. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The sixth ground of appeal alleges breach of the duty to give reasons, as, in the appellant’s view, no reasons whatsoever were given for the decision of 10 July 2007.

| 7. | The seventh ground of appeal alleges a breach of the right to effective judicial procedure, in view of the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to assess the correctness and seriousness of the grounds of dismissal. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The seventh ground of appeal alleges a breach of the right to effective judicial procedure, in view of the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to assess the correctness and seriousness of the grounds of dismissal.

| 8. | The eighth ground of appeal alleges that there was a manifest error of assessment in that the appellant’s dismissal was not based on factual evidence. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The eighth ground of appeal alleges that there was a manifest error of assessment in that the appellant’s dismissal was not based on factual evidence.

---