# C_2016419EN.01004901.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/49

---

Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by FV against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 in Case F-40/15, FV v Council

(Case T-639/16 P)

(2016/C 419/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: FV (Rhode-St-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 in Case F-40/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 in Case F-40/15;

| — | Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellant at first instance and, accordingly:






  — | annul the staff report drawn up on the appellant for 2013; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellant at first instance and, accordingly:

—

annul the staff report drawn up on the appellant for 2013;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings to pay all the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings to pay all 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 three grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment under appeal was delivered by a formation of the Tribunal composed in infringement of Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the CST.
  The appellant is of the view that that infringement is characterised by the fact that Council Decision 2016/454 appointing three Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal is itself vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction, an infringement of Articles 257 TFEU and 281 TFEU, an infringement of Annex I to Protocol No 3 to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an infringement of Article 13(2) TEU and an infringement of Council Decision 2005/150/EC of 18 January 2005 concerning the conditions and arrangements governing the submission and processing of applications for appointment as a judge of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment under appeal was delivered by a formation of the Tribunal composed in infringement of Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the CST.

The appellant is of the view that that infringement is characterised by the fact that Council Decision 2016/454 appointing three Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal is itself vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction, an infringement of Articles 257 TFEU and 281 TFEU, an infringement of Annex I to Protocol No 3 to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an infringement of Article 13(2) TEU and an infringement of Council Decision 2005/150/EC of 18 January 2005 concerning the conditions and arrangements governing the submission and processing of applications for appointment as a judge of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the review, by the first judge, of the manifest error of assessment, infringement of the obligation to state reasons placed on the defendant, infringement of the obligation to state reasons on the first judge, distortion of the file and infringement of the Guide to Staff Reports. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the review, by the first judge, of the manifest error of assessment, infringement of the obligation to state reasons placed on the defendant, infringement of the obligation to state reasons on the first judge, distortion of the file and infringement of the Guide to Staff Reports.

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the duty of care and a distortion of the file. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the duty of care and a distortion of the file.

---