# C_2014052EN.01003802.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/38

---

Appeal brought on 6 December 2013 by Kari Wahlström against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2013 in Case F-116/12, Wahlström v Frontex

(Case T-653/13 P)

2014/C 52/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

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:

| — | annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2013 dismissing its application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2013 dismissing its application;

| — | grant the forms of order sought at first instance, as the appellant contends that final judgment may be given on the matter; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the forms of order sought at first instance, as the appellant contends that final judgment may be given on the matter;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) dismissing its action that sought, first, annulment of the appellant’s assessment report for the year 2010 and, secondly, a claim for damages.

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law in that it found that the absence of dialogue between the assessor and the appellant in the context of the assessment for the year 2010 was a non-substantial procedural irregularity (concerning points 38 et seq. of the judgment under appeal). The appellant claims that:






  — | on the one hand, the CST disregarded the existing case-law; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law in that it found that the absence of dialogue between the assessor and the appellant in the context of the assessment for the year 2010 was a non-substantial procedural irregularity (concerning points 38 et seq. of the judgment under appeal). The appellant claims that:

—

on the one hand, the CST disregarded the existing case-law;

| — | on the other hand, by basing the grounds of the judgment under appeal on the context in which the assessment report had been prepared and not solely on issue of whether holding a formal dialogue was likely to affect the procedure, the CST exceeded the margins of its judicial review by encroaching on the powers of administrative discretion. |
| --- | --- |

—

on the other hand, by basing the grounds of the judgment under appeal on the context in which the assessment report had been prepared and not solely on issue of whether holding a formal dialogue was likely to affect the procedure, the CST exceeded the margins of its judicial review by encroaching on the powers of administrative discretion.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law when it held that the absence of goal-setting for the first part of 2010 did not constitute a substantial procedural defect such as to call into question the validity of the assessment report in question (concerning paragraphs 50 et seq. of the judgment under appeal). The appellant claims that:






  — | on the one hand, the CST disregarded the guidelines relating to assessment, insofar as those guidelines provided for the obligation to set new goals when changing the function of the agent during the reference period; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law when it held that the absence of goal-setting for the first part of 2010 did not constitute a substantial procedural defect such as to call into question the validity of the assessment report in question (concerning paragraphs 50 et seq. of the judgment under appeal). The appellant claims that:

—

on the one hand, the CST disregarded the guidelines relating to assessment, insofar as those guidelines provided for the obligation to set new goals when changing the function of the agent during the reference period;

| — | on the other hand, the fact that the tasks assigned to the appellant in his new role were described by reference to documents concerning the establishment and functioning of the operational office does not mean that the objectives to be achieved by the appellant in relation to those tasks had been set for him. |
| --- | --- |

—

on the other hand, the fact that the tasks assigned to the appellant in his new role were described by reference to documents concerning the establishment and functioning of the operational office does not mean that the objectives to be achieved by the appellant in relation to those tasks had been set for him.

---