# C_2013147EN.01001901.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/19

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2013 by Kris Van Neyghem against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-77/11, Van Neyghem v Council

(Case T-113/13 P)

2013/C 147/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kris Van Neyghem (Tienen, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

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 in Case F-77/11 Kris Van Neyghem v Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment in Case F-77/11 Kris Van Neyghem v Council;

| — | annul the decision of 1 October 2010 refusing to promote the appellant and upheld the claim for damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 1 October 2010 refusing to promote the appellant and upheld the claim for damages;

| — | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision if necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision if necessary;

| — | order to defendant to pay the costs including all the costs of the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order to defendant to pay the costs including all the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a breach of the duty to state reasons, as the CST held that the decision refusing to promote the person concerned could be reasoned at the stage of the answer to the complaint whereas the reasoning should already have been set out in the decision refusing promotion in so far as that decision was adopted under article 266 TFEU implementing the judgment in case F-53/08 Bouillez and Others v Council [2010] ECR I-0000 and not in accordance with article 45 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a breach of the duty to state reasons, as the CST held that the decision refusing to promote the person concerned could be reasoned at the stage of the answer to the complaint whereas the reasoning should already have been set out in the decision refusing promotion in so far as that decision was adopted under article 266 TFEU implementing the judgment in case F-53/08 Bouillez and Others v Council [2010] ECR I-0000 and not in accordance with article 45 of the Staff Regulations.

Bouillez and Others

Council

| 2. | Second pleas in law alleging an error of law and an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the relevant case-law, as the CST did not base its decision either on the operative part or on the grounds for its judgment in case F-53/08 in order to establish whether that judgment had been correctly implemented. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second pleas in law alleging an error of law and an infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the relevant case-law, as the CST did not base its decision either on the operative part or on the grounds for its judgment in case F-53/08 in order to establish whether that judgment had been correctly implemented.

---