# C_2016454EN.01002901.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/29

---

Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by  WQ (*1) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-1/16,  WQ (*1) v Parliament

(Case T-705/16 P)

(2016/C 454/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WQ (*1) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

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-1/16,  WQ (*1)
  v Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-1/16,  WQ (*1)
  v Parliament;

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 27 March 2015 not to include the appellant’s name on the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 27 March 2015 not to include the appellant’s name on the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

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

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law when it examined the plea in law submitted by the applicant at first instance alleging infringement of the general principle of equal treatment, by concluding that the applicant was in a different factual situation to that of a candidate with a qualification at the same level who completed a course of at least one year. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law when it examined the plea in law submitted by the applicant at first instance alleging infringement of the general principle of equal treatment, by concluding that the applicant was in a different factual situation to that of a candidate with a qualification at the same level who completed a course of at least one year.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it held that the decision at issue, that is to say, the decision not to include the appellant’s name on list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise, did not infringe Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the division of competences between the Union and its Member States in the field of education. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it held that the decision at issue, that is to say, the decision not to include the appellant’s name on list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise, did not infringe Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the division of competences between the Union and its Member States in the field of education.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it dismissed the plea of illegality raised by the applicant at first instance, on the ground that the requirement for having completed a course of at least one year was justified and proportionate having regard to the nature of the certification process. In that context, the appellant submits that the CST also distorted his arguments when it concluded that he had not contested the argument that taking into consideration the qualification at issue would have had the effect of highlighting his professional experience acquired at the institutions twice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it dismissed the plea of illegality raised by the applicant at first instance, on the ground that the requirement for having completed a course of at least one year was justified and proportionate having regard to the nature of the certification process. In that context, the appellant submits that the CST also distorted his arguments when it concluded that he had not contested the argument that taking into consideration the qualification at issue would have had the effect of highlighting his professional experience acquired at the institutions twice.

---

(*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.

---