# C_2015046EN.01005601.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/56

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by European Central Bank against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2014 in Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v ECB

(Case T-787/14 P)

(2015/C 046/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and M. López Torres, agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of 18 September 2014, in Case F-26/12, Cerafogli v ECB; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of 18 September 2014, in Case F-26/12, Cerafogli v ECB;

Cerafogli v ECB

| — | rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance; and |
| --- | --- |

—

rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance; and

| — | to award each party its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

to award each party its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an erroneous extrapolation of the Grolsch case-law to staff cases thereby misinterpreting the scope of the principle of effective judicial protection in the light of Article 47 of the Charter and the inadequacy of the grounds. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an erroneous extrapolation of the Grolsch case-law to staff cases thereby misinterpreting the scope of the principle of effective judicial protection in the light of Article 47 of the Charter and the inadequacy of the grounds.

Grolsch

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to take account of the rights of defence of the institution, disregarding the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure, and a failure to take account of relevant facts and misinterpretation of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to take account of the rights of defence of the institution, disregarding the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure, and a failure to take account of relevant facts and misinterpretation of the principle of legal certainty.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging erroneous conclusions drawn from the nature of a plea of illegality, the misinterpretation of Article 277 TFEU and of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging erroneous conclusions drawn from the nature of a plea of illegality, the misinterpretation of Article 277 TFEU and of the principle of legal certainty.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the principle of effective judicial protection, a failure to take account of the facts of the present case, and an infringement of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the principle of effective judicial protection, a failure to take account of the facts of the present case, and an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

---