# C_2014061EN.01001102.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/11 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Appeal brought on 10 December 2013 by BP against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 September 2013 in Case F-38/12 BP v FRA

(Case T-658/13 P)

2014/C 61/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the Civil Service Tribunal’s judgment of 30 September 2013 in case F-38/12; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Consequently, annul the decision not to renew the appellant’s contract and to transfer her to another department, dated 27 February 2012; order the defendant to compensate the appellant’s material prejudice estimated at 1 320 euros per month from September 2012, to which must be added late interest at the key rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points; and order the defendant to compensate the appellant’s moral prejudice evaluated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 euros; and |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs in the first instance and appeal. |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | Regarding the decision of non-renewal of the appellant’s contract
—
Firstly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal violated the principle of the rights of defence and the right to be heard and of access to relevant information embodied in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and it distorted the evidence; —
Secondly, the appellant alleges that by refusing to authorise a second exchange of pleadings and the production of relevant evidence in response to the observations of the defendant and at the hearing, the Civil Service Tribunal violated the appellant’s rights of defence, committed a manifest error of assessment and denied to the appellant a fair trial; —
Thirdly, the appellant alleges a manifest error made by the Civil Service Tribunal in the assessment of the first plea alleging a manifest error of assessment in the decision of the defendant and distortion of the facts and evidence; —
Fourthly, the appellant alleges a manifest error in the assessment of the pleas on retaliation and misuse of powers, distortion of the facts and evidence. | — | Firstly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal violated the principle of the rights of defence and the right to be heard and of access to relevant information embodied in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and it distorted the evidence; | — | Secondly, the appellant alleges that by refusing to authorise a second exchange of pleadings and the production of relevant evidence in response to the observations of the defendant and at the hearing, the Civil Service Tribunal violated the appellant’s rights of defence, committed a manifest error of assessment and denied to the appellant a fair trial; | — | Thirdly, the appellant alleges a manifest error made by the Civil Service Tribunal in the assessment of the first plea alleging a manifest error of assessment in the decision of the defendant and distortion of the facts and evidence; | — | Fourthly, the appellant alleges a manifest error in the assessment of the pleas on retaliation and misuse of powers, distortion of the facts and evidence. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Firstly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal violated the principle of the rights of defence and the right to be heard and of access to relevant information embodied in Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and it distorted the evidence; | | | | | | | | |
| — | Secondly, the appellant alleges that by refusing to authorise a second exchange of pleadings and the production of relevant evidence in response to the observations of the defendant and at the hearing, the Civil Service Tribunal violated the appellant’s rights of defence, committed a manifest error of assessment and denied to the appellant a fair trial; | | | | | | | | |
| — | Thirdly, the appellant alleges a manifest error made by the Civil Service Tribunal in the assessment of the first plea alleging a manifest error of assessment in the decision of the defendant and distortion of the facts and evidence; | | | | | | | | |
| — | Fourthly, the appellant alleges a manifest error in the assessment of the pleas on retaliation and misuse of powers, distortion of the facts and evidence. | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Regarding the decision of reassignment
—
Firstly, the appellant alleges an illegal assessment by the Civil Service Tribunal of the second plea, alleging irregular and unilateral amendment of an essential element of the contract of service and a discrepancy between post and grade, and a distortion of evidence; —
Secondly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the assessment of the appellant’s argument in relation to the absence of hearing by the defendant before the decision to transfer and a violation of the rights of defence. | — | Firstly, the appellant alleges an illegal assessment by the Civil Service Tribunal of the second plea, alleging irregular and unilateral amendment of an essential element of the contract of service and a discrepancy between post and grade, and a distortion of evidence; | — | Secondly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the assessment of the appellant’s argument in relation to the absence of hearing by the defendant before the decision to transfer and a violation of the rights of defence. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Firstly, the appellant alleges an illegal assessment by the Civil Service Tribunal of the second plea, alleging irregular and unilateral amendment of an essential element of the contract of service and a discrepancy between post and grade, and a distortion of evidence; | | | | |
| — | Secondly, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the assessment of the appellant’s argument in relation to the absence of hearing by the defendant before the decision to transfer and a violation of the rights of defence. | | | | |

| 3. | The appellant alleges a violation of Article 87(2) and 88 of the Rules of Procedure of the civil Service Tribunal regarding the costs, and a violation of the duty to state reasons. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

---