# C_2013325EN.01004201.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/42

---

Appeal brought on 28 August 2013 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-9/12 CC v Parliament

(Case T-457/13 P)

2013/C 325/70

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: CC (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Maximini, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-9/12 CC v European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-9/12 CC v European Parliament;

CC

European Parliament

| — | consequently, uphold the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage sustained on account of the conduct adversely affecting that party; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, uphold the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage sustained on account of the conduct adversely affecting that party;

| — | give judgment in accordance with the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

give judgment in accordance with the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on eight grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to order necessary measures of inquiry and therefore made a manifest error of assessment regarding the loss of opportunity for the appellant to be recruited to the Parliament as from June 2005. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to order necessary measures of inquiry and therefore made a manifest error of assessment regarding the loss of opportunity for the appellant to be recruited to the Parliament as from June 2005.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment and, in the alternative, distortion of the facts when the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the Council had been informed of the existence of the list of suitable candidates on which the appellant’s name appeared. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment and, in the alternative, distortion of the facts when the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the Council had been informed of the existence of the list of suitable candidates on which the appellant’s name appeared.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a manifest error of assessment, distortion of the facts, a failure to state the reasons and a failure to respond to a plea, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to respond to the appellant’s pleas concerning (i) the Parliament’s obstruction of the appellant’s recruitment by the institutions and bodies of the European Union, (ii) the absence of information concerning the existence of the list of suitable candidates and (iii) the fact that EPSO received permission to enter the appellant in its database and pass on that information. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a manifest error of assessment, distortion of the facts, a failure to state the reasons and a failure to respond to a plea, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to respond to the appellant’s pleas concerning (i) the Parliament’s obstruction of the appellant’s recruitment by the institutions and bodies of the European Union, (ii) the absence of information concerning the existence of the list of suitable candidates and (iii) the fact that EPSO received permission to enter the appellant in its database and pass on that information.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and distortion of the facts, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal (i) erred in finding that the Parliament was not under a legal obligation to distribute the list of suitable candidates to all the institutions and bodies of the European Union, (ii) failed to draw the appropriate conclusions from the breach of the principle of equal treatment, sound administration and legal certainty and (iii) failed to examine documents. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and distortion of the facts, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal (i) erred in finding that the Parliament was not under a legal obligation to distribute the list of suitable candidates to all the institutions and bodies of the European Union, (ii) failed to draw the appropriate conclusions from the breach of the principle of equal treatment, sound administration and legal certainty and (iii) failed to examine documents.

| 5. | Fifth ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and a manifest error of assessment concerning the information on the extension of the list of suitable candidates, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the Council and the other institutions and bodies of the European Union were aware of the extension of the list of suitable candidates between June and August 2007. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and a manifest error of assessment concerning the information on the extension of the list of suitable candidates, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the Council and the other institutions and bodies of the European Union were aware of the extension of the list of suitable candidates between June and August 2007.

| 6. | Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a manifest error of assessment, distortion of the facts and a failure to examine them, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the duration of the validity of the list of suitable candidates extended in respect of the other successful candidates did not imply that the appellant had been treated unequally. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a manifest error of assessment, distortion of the facts and a failure to examine them, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the duration of the validity of the list of suitable candidates extended in respect of the other successful candidates did not imply that the appellant had been treated unequally.

| 7. | Seventh ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to draw the necessary conclusions as a result of the Parliament’s destruction of the documents concerning the appellant’s situation. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to draw the necessary conclusions as a result of the Parliament’s destruction of the documents concerning the appellant’s situation.

| 8. | Eighth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and, in the alternative, distortion of the facts, failure to adopt measures of inquiry and failure to state the reasons, inasmuch as, when analysing whether there was a loss of opportunity to be recruited and evaluating the damage sustained, the Civil Service Tribunal did not take into account the appellant’s actual situation and the wrongful conduct of the Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and, in the alternative, distortion of the facts, failure to adopt measures of inquiry and failure to state the reasons, inasmuch as, when analysing whether there was a loss of opportunity to be recruited and evaluating the damage sustained, the Civil Service Tribunal did not take into account the appellant’s actual situation and the wrongful conduct of the Parliament.

---