# C_2016454EN.01002801.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/28

---

Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-147/15, Meyrl v Parliament

(Case T-699/16 P)

(2016/C 454/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Sonja Meyrl (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | consequently, dismiss the action at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, dismiss the action at first instance;

| — | declare that each of the parties should bear its own costs in relation to the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that each of the parties should bear its own costs in relation to the present proceedings;

| — | order Ms Meyrl to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ms Meyrl to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises three grounds.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a distortion of the facts and a failure to provide adequate reasons, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) held, in paragraph 25 of the judgment under appeal, that the possibility of reassigning the other party to the proceedings to a different post would have made it possible for the latter not to be dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a distortion of the facts and a failure to provide adequate reasons, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) held, in paragraph 25 of the judgment under appeal, that the possibility of reassigning the other party to the proceedings to a different post would have made it possible for the latter not to be dismissed.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a distortion of the facts and a failure to provide adequate reasons in the conclusion that the CST reached, in paragraphs 23 and 30 of the judgment under appeal, that the relationship problems were an additional reason for the dismissal of the other party to the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a distortion of the facts and a failure to provide adequate reasons in the conclusion that the CST reached, in paragraphs 23 and 30 of the judgment under appeal, that the relationship problems were an additional reason for the dismissal of the other party to the proceedings.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from the finding of the CST according to which, if the other party to the proceedings had also been given the opportunity to set out her views on the relationship problems, that might indeed have changed the outcome of the decision-making process resulting in the contested decision, namely, her dismissal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from the finding of the CST according to which, if the other party to the proceedings had also been given the opportunity to set out her views on the relationship problems, that might indeed have changed the outcome of the decision-making process resulting in the contested decision, namely, her dismissal.

---