# C_2014078EN.01001202.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/12

---

Appeal brought on 18 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D'Agostino v Commission

(Case T-670/13 P)

2014/C 78/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi D'Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission;

D’Agostino

Commission

| — | Dismiss the action brought by Mr D’Agostino in Case F-93/12 as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the action brought by Mr D’Agostino in Case F-93/12 as unfounded;

| — | Order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present instance;

| — | Order Mr D’Agostino to pay the costs of the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Mr D’Agostino to pay the costs of the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | Stay the proceedings until delivery of the judgment in Case T-368/12 P Commission v Macchia. |
| --- | --- |

—

Stay the proceedings until delivery of the judgment in Case T-368/12 P Commission v Macchia.

Commission

Macchia

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging a material error and a distortion of the facts, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) applied its judgment in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, not yet published, to the situation of a member of the contract staff who had not sought the renewal of his contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging a material error and a distortion of the facts, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) applied its judgment in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission, not yet published, to the situation of a member of the contract staff who had not sought the renewal of his contract.

Macchia

Commission

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging errors of law, divided into three parts, based on:






  — | an incorrect interpretation of Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Staff of the European Union (CEOS) (with regard to paragraphs 56 to 58 of the judgment under appeal); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging errors of law, divided into three parts, based on:

—

an incorrect interpretation of Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Staff of the European Union (CEOS) (with regard to paragraphs 56 to 58 of the judgment under appeal);

| — | an error of law in the definition of the relationship between the interest of the service and the principle of legality (with regard to paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal); |
| --- | --- |

—

an error of law in the definition of the relationship between the interest of the service and the principle of legality (with regard to paragraph 63 of the judgment under appeal);

| — | an infringement of the limits on the judicial review of the CST and the fact that the CST therefore ruled ultra vires (with regard to paragraphs 59, 60 and 63). |
| --- | --- |

—

an infringement of the limits on the judicial review of the CST and the fact that the CST therefore ruled ultra vires (with regard to paragraphs 59, 60 and 63).

ultra vires

| 3. | Third ground of appeal alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons (with regard to paragraphs 57 and 59 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons (with regard to paragraphs 57 and 59 of the judgment under appeal).

---