# C_2011290EN.01001901.xml

| 1.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/19

---

Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by Europol against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 May 2011 in Case F-83/09 Kalmár v Europol

(Case T-455/11 P)

2011/C 290/27

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Europol (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury and J. Arnould, Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and E. Antypas, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Andreas Kalmár (The Hague, Netherlands)

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 the judgment under appeal and give a ruling on the substance of this case, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal






  (a) | annulled Europol’s decision of 4 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol terminated Mr Kalmár’s fixed-term contract, the decision of 24 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol relieved him of the duty to serve his period of notice, and the decision of 18 July 2009 rejecting his complaint; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal and give a ruling on the substance of this case, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal

(a)

annulled Europol’s decision of 4 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol terminated Mr Kalmár’s fixed-term contract, the decision of 24 February 2009 whereby the Director of Europol relieved him of the duty to serve his period of notice, and the decision of 18 July 2009 rejecting his complaint;

| (b) | ordered Europol to pay damages of EUR 5 000 to Mr Kalmár; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

ordered Europol to pay damages of EUR 5 000 to Mr Kalmár; and

| (c) | ordered Europol to pay all the costs; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

ordered Europol to pay all the costs;

| — | order the respondent to pay all the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the costs incurred by him on appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay all the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the costs incurred by him on appeal;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita and of the rights of the defence. In the appellant’s submission, the Civil Service Tribunal carried out an examination on the basis of complaints other than those put forward by the respondent. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita and of the rights of the defence. In the appellant’s submission, the Civil Service Tribunal carried out an examination on the basis of complaints other than those put forward by the respondent.

ultra petita

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the lawfulness of the contested decisions. The Civil Service Tribunal erred in its application inter alia of the duty of care and of the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the lawfulness of the contested decisions. The Civil Service Tribunal erred in its application inter alia of the duty of care and of the obligation to state reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by the Civil Service Tribunal as regards the subject of the application for annulment. In the appellant’s submission, the Civil Service Tribunal ought to have classified the decision of 18 July 2009 as a decision having an adverse effect which is also subject to judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law by the Civil Service Tribunal as regards the subject of the application for annulment. In the appellant’s submission, the Civil Service Tribunal ought to have classified the decision of 18 July 2009 as a decision having an adverse effect which is also subject to judicial review.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging numerous errors in the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal according to which Europol ‘did not’ or ‘did not carefully’ take account of certain ‘relevant and non-negligible facts’ when taking the dismissal decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging numerous errors in the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal according to which Europol ‘did not’ or ‘did not carefully’ take account of certain ‘relevant and non-negligible facts’ when taking the dismissal decision.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was insufficiently reasoned. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was insufficiently reasoned.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging incorrect award of damages. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging incorrect award of damages.

---