# C_2015279EN.01004901.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/49

---

Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 April 2015 in Case F-72/14, Garcia Minguez v Commission

(Case T-357/15 P)

(2015/C 279/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by L. Ortiz Blanco and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant requests the General Court:

| — | to set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 28 April 2015 in case F-72/14; |
| --- | --- |

—

to set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 28 April 2015 in case F-72/14;

| — | to rule on the proceedings in F-72/14 and to annul the decision of the Commission not to admit the appellant to the internal competition COM/3/AD 9/13; and |
| --- | --- |

—

to rule on the proceedings in F-72/14 and to annul the decision of the Commission not to admit the appellant to the internal competition COM/3/AD 9/13; and

| — | to order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 an error of law in the interpretation of the terms ‘Commission’ and ‘institution’ appearing in the competition notice and Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. The appellant contends that the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) must be considered part of the Commission for the purpose of determining those eligible for an internal competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the terms ‘Commission’ and ‘institution’ appearing in the competition notice and Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. The appellant contends that the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) must be considered part of the Commission for the purpose of determining those eligible for an internal competition.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. The appellant contends that it is unlawful to admit staff working directly for an institution to an internal competition, including those who are seconded to an executive agency, and at the same time to exclude the other staff working for the same agency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. The appellant contends that it is unlawful to admit staff working directly for an institution to an internal competition, including those who are seconded to an executive agency, and at the same time to exclude the other staff working for the same agency.

| 3. | Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the obligation to reply to a plea put forward in the application, failure to give reasons and an error of law in the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the statutes of the institutions. The appellant contends that her particular situation — she performed, with the agreement of the Commission, the duties of head of unit for two units shown on the Commission organisation chart — justifies her being admitted to the internal competition in question. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the obligation to reply to a plea put forward in the application, failure to give reasons and an error of law in the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the statutes of the institutions. The appellant contends that her particular situation — she performed, with the agreement of the Commission, the duties of head of unit for two units shown on the Commission organisation chart — justifies her being admitted to the internal competition in question.

---