# C_2016314EN.01002101.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — EMA v Hristov

(Case T-27/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - Appointment - Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel - Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board - Composition of the pre-selection panel - Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board - Impartiality))

(2016/C 314/29)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Medicines Agency (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers) (applicant at first instance); and European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents) (defendant at first instance)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12, EU:F:2014:245), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Hristov

Commission and EMA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA;

| 2. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12) in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12) in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.

1

---