# C_2012049EN.01002802.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/28

---

Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Peter Strobl against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-56/05 Strobl v Commission

(Case T-630/11 P)

2012/C 49/51

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Peter Strobl (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Other parties 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 29 September 2011 in Strobl v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Strobl v Commission;

Strobl

Commission

| — | declare the defendant’s grading decision in [Mr Strobl’s] appointment of 7 October 2004 incorrect and annul it; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the defendant’s grading decision in [Mr Strobl’s] appointment of 7 October 2004 incorrect and annul it;

| — | order the defendant to cease to discriminate against Mr Strobl and to compensate him for the disadvantage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to cease to discriminate against Mr Strobl and to compensate him for the disadvantage suffered;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the entire proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the entire proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | Incorrect findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal with regard to the professional experience required for the appellant’s post. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Incorrect findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal with regard to the professional experience required for the appellant’s post.

| 2. | Incorrect findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal and contradictory interpretation of the evidence with regard to the grading of the appellant and, to that extent, infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Incorrect findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal and contradictory interpretation of the evidence with regard to the grading of the appellant and, to that extent, infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based.

| 3. | Infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the obligation to state reasons in relation to its rejection of a number of the appellant’s complaints. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the obligation to state reasons in relation to its rejection of a number of the appellant’s complaints.

| 4. | Infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the obligation to state reasons with regard to the review of the appellant’s step in grade. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the obligation to state reasons with regard to the review of the appellant’s step in grade.

| 5. | Failure on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons with regard to the applicability of the relevant case-law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Failure on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons with regard to the applicability of the relevant case-law.

---