# C_2011089EN.01002302.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/23

---

Appeal brought on 25 January 2011 by Michel Nolin against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 December 2010 in Case F-82/09, Nolin v Commission

(Case T-58/11 P)

2011/C 89/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

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:

| — | Set aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2010 in Case F-82/09 (Michel Nolin v Commission); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2010 in Case F-82/09 (Michel Nolin v Commission);

| — | and, giving judgment itself,






  — | annul the decision of 19 December 2008 of the Director-General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General of the European Commission, to cancel all of the appellant's merit points and priority points following his promotion to grade AD 13 under Article 29(1)(a)(iii) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

and, giving judgment itself,

—

annul the decision of 19 December 2008 of the Director-General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General of the European Commission, to cancel all of the appellant's merit points and priority points following his promotion to grade AD 13 under Article 29(1)(a)(iii) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty, since the CST erred in law in deciding that the Commission was entitled, with no legal basis, to base the contested decision on the general scheme of the general implementing provisions under Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty, since the CST erred in law in deciding that the Commission was entitled, with no legal basis, to base the contested decision on the general scheme of the general implementing provisions under Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging misapplication of the principle of non-discrimination, since the CST erred in law (i) in deciding that the Director-General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General had residual power which had not been legally conferred on him by a decision of the appointing authority in accordance with Article 2(ii) of the Staff Regulations and (ii) in deciding that officials promoted pursuant to Articles 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations would, following their appointment or promotion, be in the same legal situation, even though that situation would not be the same either in terms of procedure or in terms of duties and responsibilities. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging misapplication of the principle of non-discrimination, since the CST erred in law (i) in deciding that the Director-General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General had residual power which had not been legally conferred on him by a decision of the appointing authority in accordance with Article 2(ii) of the Staff Regulations and (ii) in deciding that officials promoted pursuant to Articles 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations would, following their appointment or promotion, be in the same legal situation, even though that situation would not be the same either in terms of procedure or in terms of duties and responsibilities.

---