# C_2014052EN.01003901.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/39

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by the Court of Auditors of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 October 2013 in Case F-69/11, BF v Court of Auditors

(Case T-663/13 P)

2014/C 52/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by T. Kennedy and J. Vermer, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: BF (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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 in Case F-69/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-69/11;

| — | grant the form of order sought at first instance by the Court of Auditors, namely dismiss the action as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought at first instance by the Court of Auditors, namely dismiss the action as unfounded;

| — | order BF to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those which took place before the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order BF to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those which took place before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 6 of Decision 45-2010 of 17 June 2010 on the selection procedures for Heads of Unit and Directors. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 6 of Decision 45-2010 of 17 June 2010 on the selection procedures for Heads of Unit and Directors.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the evidence by the Civil Service Tribunal in considering that the scores awarded to the candidates by the Pre-selection Committee constituted information that must be included in the report submitted by the Pre-selection Committee to the appointing authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the evidence by the Civil Service Tribunal in considering that the scores awarded to the candidates by the Pre-selection Committee constituted information that must be included in the report submitted by the Pre-selection Committee to the appointing authority.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal acted in breach of its obligation to examine the facts on the basis of which it found there to be a procedural irregularity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal acted in breach of its obligation to examine the facts on the basis of which it found there to be a procedural irregularity.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and an error of law undermining the consistency of the case-law in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the irregularity relating to the failure to state reasons required by Article 6(1) of Decision 45-2010 with regard to the report of the Pre-selection Committee is liable to lead to the annulment of the decisions contested at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and an error of law undermining the consistency of the case-law in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the irregularity relating to the failure to state reasons required by Article 6(1) of Decision 45-2010 with regard to the report of the Pre-selection Committee is liable to lead to the annulment of the decisions contested at first instance.

---