# C_2012049EN.01003002.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/30

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament

(Case T-642/11 P)

2012/C 49/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische, and M. Velardo, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, 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 European Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament and, to the extent possible based on the facts before the Court deliver judgment, and: |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament and, to the extent possible based on the facts before the Court deliver judgment, and:

Mische

Parliament

| — | Annul the Parliament’s decision of 4 October 2004 in so far as it determines the appellant’s grading; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Parliament’s decision of 4 October 2004 in so far as it determines the appellant’s grading;

| — | Order the Parliament to make good any damage caused (including damages to his career, legal and regular pay, immaterial damages, with default interest etc.); |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to make good any damage caused (including damages to his career, legal and regular pay, immaterial damages, with default interest etc.);

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the cost of these proceedings and those before the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the cost of these proceedings and those before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in declaring the action inadmissible for having been lodged out of time. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in declaring the action inadmissible for having been lodged out of time.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in ruling that the action is inadmissible because it would not have been liable to procure any advantage to the appellant, and thus he did not have an interest in bringing the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in ruling that the action is inadmissible because it would not have been liable to procure any advantage to the appellant, and thus he did not have an interest in bringing the action.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to rule on the pleas raised on the merits of the application, in particular the infringement of Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations (1). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to rule on the pleas raised on the merits of the application, in particular the infringement of Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations (1).

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1)

1

---