# C_2011238EN.01002002.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/20

---

Appeal brought on 3 June 2011 by Diego Canga Fano against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2011 in Case F-104/09, Canga Fano v Council

(Case T-281/11 P)

2011/C 238/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Diego Canga Fano (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare the appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the appeal admissible;

| — | set aside the judgment delivered on 24 March 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-104/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered on 24 March 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-104/09;

| — | grant the applications for annulment and damages which the applicant brought before the Civil Service Tribunal, subject to the proviso that the applicant would be satisfied with the annulment of the decision adopted and would accept one euro as symbolic compensation for the damage caused to him; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applications for annulment and damages which the applicant brought before the Civil Service Tribunal, subject to the proviso that the applicant would be satisfied with the annulment of the decision adopted and would accept one euro as symbolic compensation for the damage caused to him;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, divided into three parts and alleging an error of law.

| — | In the first part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal interpreted the applicable provisions in a manner contrary to that laid down by the Court of Justice and the General Court in their case-law concerning the appointing authority's discretion (paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

—

In the first part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal interpreted the applicable provisions in a manner contrary to that laid down by the Court of Justice and the General Court in their case-law concerning the appointing authority's discretion (paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment under appeal).

| — | In the second part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal drew conclusions unjustified in law in its review of the manifest error of assessment (paragraphs 48, 51, 52, 58, 78, and 79 of the judgment under appeal) and contradicted its own criteria, with which it claims to replace the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the second part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal drew conclusions unjustified in law in its review of the manifest error of assessment (paragraphs 48, 51, 52, 58, 78, and 79 of the judgment under appeal) and contradicted its own criteria, with which it claims to replace the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court.

| — | In the third part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal's statement of reasons is vitiated by inaccuracies of fact, linked to distortion of, or failure to take account of, evidence put before it (paragraphs 80, 81, 85, 88 and 90 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

—

In the third part, the applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal's statement of reasons is vitiated by inaccuracies of fact, linked to distortion of, or failure to take account of, evidence put before it (paragraphs 80, 81, 85, 88 and 90 of the judgment under appeal).

---