# C_2018381EN.01001401.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/14

---

Appeal brought on 26 July 2018 by Inge Barnett against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2018 in Case T-23/17 Barnett v European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

(Case C-503/18 P)

(2018/C 381/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Inge Barnett (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Form of order sought

Primarily:

| — | Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271;

| — | Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107;

| — | Order the EESC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EESC to pay the costs.

In the alternative:

| — | Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2018, Barnett v EESC, T-23/17, EU:T:2018:271;

| — | Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the EESC of 21 March 2016, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 22 September 2015, Barnett v EESC, F-20/14, EU:F:2015:107;

| — | Order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay to the appellant a sum of EUR 207 994,14 in respect of the material damage suffered, together with default interest calculated from the due date of the sums payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points and a lump sum of EUR 25 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay to the appellant a sum of EUR 207 994,14 in respect of the material damage suffered, together with default interest calculated from the due date of the sums payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points and a lump sum of EUR 25 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | Order the EESC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EESC to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the General Court made several errors in law by considering that the EESC could, in order to give effect to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, merely review the appellant’s application in the light of an alleged interest of the service which was supposedly identified three years after the adoption of the first decision refusing her application and of which the parties were unaware until 21 March 2016. That alleged interest of the service, which causes the appellant to be struck off the list of beneficiaries because she is indispensable for the proper functioning of the service, is unrelated to the applicable GIP of the EESC. Furthermore, that alleged interest of the service was relied on without consultation of the Joint Committee. That committee had nevertheless pointed out in 2013 that in the event of the withdrawal of one of the beneficiaries of the measure, a proposal would be made to award the appellant that privilege, taking into account the interest of the service.

The appellant also maintains that the General Court failed to have regard to the force res judicata of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal.

Finally, the contested judgment is vitiated by an error of law in that the General Court considered that, despite the repeal of the legal basis necessary for the adoption of the contested decision, the EESC had retained the competence to adopt a decision in response to the appellant’s application. In answering that plea, the Court also misinterpreted the arguments relied on in support of the objection of lack of competence raised by the appellant.

---