# C_2015294EN.01004301.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/43

---

Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Claire Staelen against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman

(Case C-338/15 P)

(2015/C 294/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment delivered on 29 April 2015 by the General Court in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment delivered on 29 April 2015 by the General Court in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman;

Staelen

European Ombudsman

| — | therefore, uphold the appellant’s application for compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of the conduct adversely affecting her, the amount of which the appellant calculates at EUR 50  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

therefore, uphold the appellant’s application for compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of the conduct adversely affecting her, the amount of which the appellant calculates at EUR 50  000;

| — | rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance except her application for compensation for material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance except her application for compensation for material damage;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant invokes six grounds in support of her appeal all alleging errors of law and distortion of the facts.

In the first place, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in so far as the appellant refused to allow the investigation on the initiative of the Ombudsman. The General Court also distorted the subject-matter of the complaint.

In the second place, she claims that the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 228 TFEU and Decision 94/262 (1) by depriving them of effectiveness.

1

In the third place, she claims that the General Court distorted the facts with regard to the duration of the discrimination relating to inclusion in the lists of suitable candidates.

In the fourth place, she complains that the General Court distorted the facts and erred in law by holding that the Ombudsman did not infringe its duty of transparency and due diligence.

In the fifth place, she complains that the General Court declared inapplicable the Decision of the President of the European Parliament, of 23 February 2003, and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

In the last place, she considers that the General Court was wrong to hold that the Ombudsman did not have to examine the entire destruction of the competition dossier.

---

(1)  Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15).

1

---