# C_2016371EN.01002401.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/24

---

Appeal brought on 22 August 2016 by HI against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15, HI v Commission

(Case T-464/16 P)

(2016/C 371/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: HI (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15 and itself rule on the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15 and itself rule on the case;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First ground, alleging breach of EU law in relation to the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence, in so far as the appointing authority of the European Commission did not set out in detail the reasons behind its decision to impose on the appellant, by way of disciplinary penalty, a downgrading by two grades within the same function group. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground, alleging breach of EU law in relation to the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence, in so far as the appointing authority of the European Commission did not set out in detail the reasons behind its decision to impose on the appellant, by way of disciplinary penalty, a downgrading by two grades within the same function group.

| 2. | Second ground, alleging breaches of EU law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) committed in relation to observance of a reasonable period, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons. The CST, moreover, distorted the facts and evidence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground, alleging breaches of EU law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) committed in relation to observance of a reasonable period, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons. The CST, moreover, distorted the facts and evidence.

| 3. | Third ground, alleging distortion of facts and evidence and breaches of EU law and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, committed by the CST. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground, alleging distortion of facts and evidence and breaches of EU law and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, committed by the CST.

| 4. | Fourth ground, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality committed by the CST. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality committed by the CST.

---