# C_2014024EN.01003601.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/36

---

Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by Carla Faita against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11, Faita v EESC

(Case T-619/13 P)

2014/C 24/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carla Faita (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, M. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11 (Faita v EESC); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Case F-92/11 (Faita v EESC);

| — | order the EESC to pay the appellant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from the breach of the appointing authority’s duty of care; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EESC to pay the appellant a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from the breach of the appointing authority’s duty of care;

| — | order the EESC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EESC to pay the costs.

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 as regards the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure and the principle of sound administration, the Civil Service Tribunal not having found fault with the fact that the rejection of the complaint contained identical reasoning, word for word, to that to that in the rejection of the application against which the complaint was brought, despite the fact that the complaint contained different arguments to those in the application (relating to paragraphs 44 and 65 to 67 of the contested judgment). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law as regards the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure and the principle of sound administration, the Civil Service Tribunal not having found fault with the fact that the rejection of the complaint contained identical reasoning, word for word, to that to that in the rejection of the application against which the complaint was brought, despite the fact that the complaint contained different arguments to those in the application (relating to paragraphs 44 and 65 to 67 of the contested judgment).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging first, an infringement of the rights of the defence, to the extent that the appellant did not have the opportunity to make an argument during the procedure in front of the Civil Service Tribunal when the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appointing authority relied on a fifth implicit reason in its decision to reject the appellant’s application and, second, an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal undertook an analysis of the conditions laid down in Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in its review of legality of the application of Article 24 of those Regulations (relating to paragraphs 94 and onwards in the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging first, an infringement of the rights of the defence, to the extent that the appellant did not have the opportunity to make an argument during the procedure in front of the Civil Service Tribunal when the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appointing authority relied on a fifth implicit reason in its decision to reject the appellant’s application and, second, an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal undertook an analysis of the conditions laid down in Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in its review of legality of the application of Article 24 of those Regulations (relating to paragraphs 94 and onwards in the judgment under appeal).

---