# Official Journal C 291/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.291.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 291 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 565 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.291.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 291

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 565 October 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2013/C 291/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 284, 28.9.2013 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2013/C 291/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 284, 28.9.2013

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2013/C 291/02 | Case C-370/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa | 2 |
| | General Court |
| 2013/C 291/03 | Case T-392/13: Action brought on 25 July 2013 — La Ferla v Commission and ECHA | 3 |
| 2013/C 291/04 | Case T-397/13: Action brought on 6 August 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission | 4 |
| 2013/C 291/05 | Case T-434/13: Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Doux v Commission | 4 |
| 2013/C 291/06 | Case T-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 in Case F-143/11, Marcuccio v Commission | 5 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2013/C 291/07 | Case F-22/13: Action brought on 11th July 2013 — ZZ v Commission | 7 |
| 2013/C 291/08 | Case F-76/13: Action brought on 9 August 2013 — ZZ v Commission | 7 |
| 2013/C 291/09 | Case F-78/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — ZZ v EEAS | 7 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2013/C 291/02

Case C-370/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa

2

General Court

2013/C 291/03

Case T-392/13: Action brought on 25 July 2013 — La Ferla v Commission and ECHA

3

2013/C 291/04

Case T-397/13: Action brought on 6 August 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

4

2013/C 291/05

Case T-434/13: Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Doux v Commission

4

2013/C 291/06

Case T-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 in Case F-143/11, Marcuccio v Commission

5

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2013/C 291/07

Case F-22/13: Action brought on 11th July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

7

2013/C 291/08

Case F-76/13: Action brought on 9 August 2013 — ZZ v Commission

7

2013/C 291/09

Case F-78/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

7

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/1

---

2013/C 291/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 284, 28.9.2013

Past publications

OJ C 274, 21.9.2013

OJ C 260, 7.9.2013

OJ C 252, 31.8.2013

OJ C 245, 24.8.2013

OJ C 233, 10.8.2013

OJ C 226, 3.8.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa

(Case C-370/13)

2013/C 291/02

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre

Defendant: Minister Skarbu Państwa

Question referred

Must Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, be interpreted as prohibiting the exclusion — as in Article 3(2) read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of the Law of 8 July 2005 on the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Republic of Poland (Dz. U. No 169, item 1418; Dz. U. 2006 No 195, item 1437; Dz. U. 2008 No 197, item 1223 and Dz. U. 2010 No 257, item 1726) — from the group of persons entitled to receive compensation of an heir of the owner of property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State who does not hold Polish citizenship?

---

General Court

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/3

---

Action brought on 25 July 2013 — La Ferla v Commission and ECHA

(Case T-392/13)

2013/C 291/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Leone La Ferla SpA (Melilli, Italy) (represented by: G. Passalacqua, J. Occhipinti and G. Calcerano, lawyers)

Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested measures in their entirety or to the extent that the Court may deem just and in the interests of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested measures in their entirety or to the extent that the Court may deem just and in the interests of the applicant;

| — | consequently, order the ECHA to repay the sums wrongly received from the applicant, together with statutory interest and compensation for monetary inflation from the date on which the payments made by the applicant were credited to the ECHA, until repayment in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the ECHA to repay the sums wrongly received from the applicant, together with statutory interest and compensation for monetary inflation from the date on which the payments made by the applicant were credited to the ECHA, until repayment in full;

| — | or, cumulatively or alternatively, order the ECHA to make good the damage sustained by Leone La Ferla Spa, in the amount of the abovementioned sums wrongly received from the applicant, together with statutory interest and compensation for monetary inflation from the date on which the payments made by the applicant were credited to the ECHA, until such damage is made good; |
| --- | --- |

—

or, cumulatively or alternatively, order the ECHA to make good the damage sustained by Leone La Ferla Spa, in the amount of the abovementioned sums wrongly received from the applicant, together with statutory interest and compensation for monetary inflation from the date on which the payments made by the applicant were credited to the ECHA, until such damage is made good;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case contests the decision whereby the ECHA — finding that the applicant had failed to prove that it was a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) — ordered it to pay the registration fees at the rates laid down for large enterprises and to pay the corresponding administrative charge.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | By its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the ECHA unlawfully exceeded its powers, which are limited to ascertaining whether the applicant undertaking is entitled to the reduced fee payable by SMEs, by putting itself in the place of the Commission in adopting the decision concerning that entitlement and by applying in an arbitrary manner, in order to determine whether the applicant had the legal status of an SME, substantive criteria other than those laid down by the Commission in Regulation No 340/2008. (1)

  The power to adopt decisions concerning entitlement to the reduced tariff for SMEs involves an assessment as to whether the criteria of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, on Community finance for SMEs, are applicable to the size of the enterprise registered; that assessment is not a matter for the ECHA Secretariat but for the Commission alone, since neither the REACH Regulation nor the Commission’s implementing regulations have provided an ad hoc definition.
  In addition, as regards ascertaining the legal status of an SME, Commission Regulation (EC) 340/2008 expressly restricts the application of the sub-criteria of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, relating to holdings in other companies, to enterprises not established in the European Union. It follows, conversely, that those criteria may not be applied in evaluating the size of an enterprise established in the European Union in order to check whether the latter is entitled to the reduced fee. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the ECHA unlawfully exceeded its powers, which are limited to ascertaining whether the applicant undertaking is entitled to the reduced fee payable by SMEs, by putting itself in the place of the Commission in adopting the decision concerning that entitlement and by applying in an arbitrary manner, in order to determine whether the applicant had the legal status of an SME, substantive criteria other than those laid down by the Commission in Regulation No 340/2008. (1)

The power to adopt decisions concerning entitlement to the reduced tariff for SMEs involves an assessment as to whether the criteria of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, on Community finance for SMEs, are applicable to the size of the enterprise registered; that assessment is not a matter for the ECHA Secretariat but for the Commission alone, since neither the REACH Regulation nor the Commission’s implementing regulations have provided an ad hoc definition.

In addition, as regards ascertaining the legal status of an SME, Commission Regulation (EC) 340/2008 expressly restricts the application of the sub-criteria of Recommendation 2003/361/EC, relating to holdings in other companies, to enterprises not established in the European Union. It follows, conversely, that those criteria may not be applied in evaluating the size of an enterprise established in the European Union in order to check whether the latter is entitled to the reduced fee.

| 2. | By its second plea in law, the applicant submits that, in any event, the ECHA has in this case unlawfully applied the abovementioned sub-criteria by failing to take into account that Leone La Ferla S.p.a. is a family enterprise, since all its shares are owned by the La Ferla brothers. For that reason, no importance should have been attached, even under the sub-criteria in question, to the partnerships and links with other enterprises, given that none of the other enterprises linked to the applicant operates in the same market as it does or in adjacent markets (Article 3(3) of Annex I to Recommendation 361/2003/EC). |
| --- | --- |

2.

By its second plea in law, the applicant submits that, in any event, the ECHA has in this case unlawfully applied the abovementioned sub-criteria by failing to take into account that Leone La Ferla S.p.a. is a family enterprise, since all its shares are owned by the La Ferla brothers. For that reason, no importance should have been attached, even under the sub-criteria in question, to the partnerships and links with other enterprises, given that none of the other enterprises linked to the applicant operates in the same market as it does or in adjacent markets (Article 3(3) of Annex I to Recommendation 361/2003/EC).

| 3. | By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the contested measure was unlawfully signed by the Executive Director of ECHA, since the REACH Regulation does not provide that the Executive Director may adopt decisions relating to the size of the enterprises requesting registration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the contested measure was unlawfully signed by the Executive Director of ECHA, since the REACH Regulation does not provide that the Executive Director may adopt decisions relating to the size of the enterprises requesting registration.

| 4. | By its fourth plea in law, the applicant challenges the legality of Decisions ECHA MB/D/29/2010 and MB/D/21/2012/D whereby the Agency set the amount of the ‘administrative charge’, arbitrarily varying its amount between several financial values, whereas in reality the charge will be imposed only at the highest rate. Such decisions are unlawful — as therefore are the provisons implementing them — given that it is for the Commission to establish the exact amount of all the fees and charges provided for under the REACH Regulation (the ECHA may provide only a classification of services ‘other’ than those specific to the REACH system) and that the ‘administrative charge’ will be paid to the ECHA budget. In addition, since such a ‘charge’ constitutes an administrative penalty, intended to deter improper conduct or the withholding of information by enterprises, that charge must be determined by the Member States in accordance with the REACH Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

By its fourth plea in law, the applicant challenges the legality of Decisions ECHA MB/D/29/2010 and MB/D/21/2012/D whereby the Agency set the amount of the ‘administrative charge’, arbitrarily varying its amount between several financial values, whereas in reality the charge will be imposed only at the highest rate. Such decisions are unlawful — as therefore are the provisons implementing them — given that it is for the Commission to establish the exact amount of all the fees and charges provided for under the REACH Regulation (the ECHA may provide only a classification of services ‘other’ than those specific to the REACH system) and that the ‘administrative charge’ will be paid to the ECHA budget. In addition, since such a ‘charge’ constitutes an administrative penalty, intended to deter improper conduct or the withholding of information by enterprises, that charge must be determined by the Member States in accordance with the REACH Regulation.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).

---

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/4

---

Action brought on 6 August 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case T-397/13)

2013/C 291/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and F. Le Roquais, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare admissible the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJEU L 196/13 of 19 July 2013); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare admissible the action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJEU L 196/13 of 19 July 2013);

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJEU L 196/13 of 19 July 2013); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (OJEU L 196/13 of 19 July 2013);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging abuse of process, since the internal rules of the management committee were infringed in so far as the Commission did not permit the committee to consider all the information necessary in order to give its opinion on the draft text to be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Regulation No 182/2011. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging abuse of process, since the internal rules of the management committee were infringed in so far as the Commission did not permit the committee to consider all the information necessary in order to give its opinion on the draft text to be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Regulation No 182/2011. (1)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity and lack of competence, since the contested regulation was adopted under the signature of the Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development on behalf of the President of the Commission, without it being shown that an act of delegation and a declaration of self-certification exist. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity and lack of competence, since the contested regulation was adopted under the signature of the Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development on behalf of the President of the Commission, without it being shown that an act of delegation and a declaration of self-certification exist.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging inadequacy of the statement of reasons for the contested regulation, in so far as:






  — | recital 6 in the preamble to the regulation cannot constitute a sufficient statement of reasons for a regulation which departs from the normal practice of the Commission of fixing the amount of refunds according to the difference between the price of the goods concerned on the Community market, on the one hand, and on the world market, on the other, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging inadequacy of the statement of reasons for the contested regulation, in so far as:

—

recital 6 in the preamble to the regulation cannot constitute a sufficient statement of reasons for a regulation which departs from the normal practice of the Commission of fixing the amount of refunds according to the difference between the price of the goods concerned on the Community market, on the one hand, and on the world market, on the other, and

| — | the statement of reasons is inconsistent and contradictory in that it is an identical reproduction of the earlier Implementing Regulation No 360/2013 without taking into account the progressive criteria set out in Article 164 of Regulation No 1234/2007. (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

the statement of reasons is inconsistent and contradictory in that it is an identical reproduction of the earlier Implementing Regulation No 360/2013 without taking into account the progressive criteria set out in Article 164 of Regulation No 1234/2007. (2)

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the law or at least a manifest error of assessment, since the information furnished by the Commission to the management committee does not satisfy the criteria laid down in Article 164(3) of Regulation No 1234/2007. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the law or at least a manifest error of assessment, since the information furnished by the Commission to the management committee does not satisfy the criteria laid down in Article 164(3) of Regulation No 1234/2007.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, in so far as the applicant legitimately expected, following assurances received from the Commission, the system of positive refunds to continue until the end of the current common agricultural policy. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, in so far as the applicant legitimately expected, following assurances received from the Commission, the system of positive refunds to continue until the end of the current common agricultural policy.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p.13).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

---

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/4

---

Action brought on 21 August 2013 — Doux v Commission

(Case T-434/13)

2013/C 291/05

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Doux SA (Châteaulin, France) (represented by: J. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the contested regulation does not contain any statement of reasons. The applicant claims that the statement of reasons mentioned in the contested regulation is merely a standard statement of reasons which does not make it possible to follow the reasoning of the Commission, whereas the Commission should have indicated very specifically the considerations justifying moving from a refund of EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0, particularly because it is breaking from its previous decision-making practice. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the contested regulation does not contain any statement of reasons. The applicant claims that the statement of reasons mentioned in the contested regulation is merely a standard statement of reasons which does not make it possible to follow the reasoning of the Commission, whereas the Commission should have indicated very specifically the considerations justifying moving from a refund of EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0, particularly because it is breaking from its previous decision-making practice.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations since the Commission had assured operators that the refunds would be maintained until the entry into force of the new common agricultural policy. The applicant claims that the reduction in the refund from EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0 was not foreseeable in the light of the situation in the poultry market. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations since the Commission had assured operators that the refunds would be maintained until the entry into force of the new common agricultural policy. The applicant claims that the reduction in the refund from EUR 108,50 per tonne to EUR 0 was not foreseeable in the light of the situation in the poultry market.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission took the view that economic indicators justified setting the amount of refund at EUR 0 although the increase in market price will be mostly absorbed by the rise of the Euro against the Dollar. The applicant is thus of the opinion that economic indicators do not justify refunds being abolished. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission took the view that economic indicators justified setting the amount of refund at EUR 0 although the increase in market price will be mostly absorbed by the rise of the Euro against the Dollar. The applicant is thus of the opinion that economic indicators do not justify refunds being abolished.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission held that it would be appropriate for the contested regulation to enter into force immediately ‘in order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management’. The applicant submits that that statement of reasons, which is identical to that of preceding regulations, is particularly inadequate in the present case since the sudden removal of export refunds without prior notice, which would have permitted adaptation of the economic model of operators, could instead lead to internal market disruption. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission held that it would be appropriate for the contested regulation to enter into force immediately ‘in order to prevent divergence with the current market situation, to prevent market speculation and to ensure efficient management’. The applicant submits that that statement of reasons, which is identical to that of preceding regulations, is particularly inadequate in the present case since the sudden removal of export refunds without prior notice, which would have permitted adaptation of the economic model of operators, could instead lead to internal market disruption.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission, since it did not adopt the contested regulation on a ground provided for in Regulation No 1234/2007. (1) |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers by the Commission, since it did not adopt the contested regulation on a ground provided for in Regulation No 1234/2007. (1)

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

---

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/5

---

Appeal brought on 22 August 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 in Case F-143/11, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-447/13 P)

2013/C 291/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

| — | Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 dismissing as manifestly inadmissible an action for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellant’s request of 16 August 2011 and for (ii) payment of the sum of EUR 3 316,31 in respect of part of the costs incurred for the purposes of Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission.

In support of its claims, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | Absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts.

| 2. | Incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and application of:






  — | the concept of ‘request’ within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

—

the concept of ‘request’ within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | Article 91 of those regulations and illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 91 of those regulations and illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law;

| — | the concept of the obligation on an institution of the European Union to adopt the measures necessary for compliance with a judgment of the Courts of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

the concept of the obligation on an institution of the European Union to adopt the measures necessary for compliance with a judgment of the Courts of the European Union.

| 3. | Absolute failure to carry out any preliminary investigations and to state reasons, and failure to rule on a claim made by the appellant in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Absolute failure to carry out any preliminary investigations and to state reasons, and failure to rule on a claim made by the appellant in the proceedings.

| 4. | Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, and consequently manifest breach of the principle of the court specified by law, referred to, inter alia, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, and consequently manifest breach of the principle of the court specified by law, referred to, inter alia, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/7

---

Action brought on 11th July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-22/13)

2013/C 291/07

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Pecyna, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision refusing the recruitment of the Applicant considering that he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria set in the EPSO/AD/207/11 competition notice.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Unit B.2 in Directorate — General Human Resources and Security of the European Commission dated 26 September 2012 which refused his recruitment at the Commission (ESTAT) from the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/207/11 and adding a comment in the reserve list of that competition informing the Commission's departments that the applicant did not meet the conditions of eligibility for that competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Unit B.2 in Directorate — General Human Resources and Security of the European Commission dated 26 September 2012 which refused his recruitment at the Commission (ESTAT) from the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/207/11 and adding a comment in the reserve list of that competition informing the Commission's departments that the applicant did not meet the conditions of eligibility for that competition;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of the Director of DG HR.D.2 of the European Commission rejecting the complaint lodged by ZZ (No. Rl696/12) dated 25 February 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of the Director of DG HR.D.2 of the European Commission rejecting the complaint lodged by ZZ (No. Rl696/12) dated 25 February 2013;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/7

---

Action brought on 9 August 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-76/13)

2013/C 291/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision considering the applicant ineligible for the call for expressions of interest CAST/02/2010 and rejecting the PMO’s request for a member of the contract staff to be recruited.

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of the AECE of 8 November 2012 considering the applicant ineligible for the call for expressions of interest CAST2010 and refusing to offer him a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the contract staff for function group III (FGIII); |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of the AECE of 8 November 2012 considering the applicant ineligible for the call for expressions of interest CAST2010 and refusing to offer him a contract for an indefinite period as a member of the contract staff for function group III (FGIII);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/7

---

Action brought on 23 August 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-78/13)

2013/C 291/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant from the EEAS office in Burundi to its headquarters in Brussels.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 15 July 2013 of the High Representative of the European Union to transfer the applicant, in the interests of the service, with immediate effect to a position in the MDR.C in Brussels; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 15 July 2013 of the High Representative of the European Union to transfer the applicant, in the interests of the service, with immediate effect to a position in the MDR.C in Brussels;

| — | declare that the EEAS committed a series of breaches of its administrative duties by adopting the contested decision, breaches which render the European Union liable; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the EEAS committed a series of breaches of its administrative duties by adopting the contested decision, breaches which render the European Union liable;

| — | declare that the contested decision causes the applicant and his spouse serious damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision causes the applicant and his spouse serious damage;

| — | take formal notice of the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

take formal notice of the action;

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

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---