# C_2016441EN.01002701.xml

| 28.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/27

---

Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission

(Case T-693/16 P)

(2016/C 441/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15;

| — | in consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly,






  — | annul Decision CMS 13-005 of the Tripartite appointing authority in so far as it provides for deferment of the appellant’s advancement to a higher salary step for 18 months and for payment of compensation in respect of damage assessed by the decision at EUR 108 596,35; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly,

—

annul Decision CMS 13-005 of the Tripartite appointing authority in so far as it provides for deferment of the appellant’s advancement to a higher salary step for 18 months and for payment of compensation in respect of damage assessed by the decision at EUR 108 596,35;

| — | so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appellant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appellant’s complaint;

| — | in the alternative, reduce the financial penalty contained in Decision CMS 13-005; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce the financial penalty contained in Decision CMS 13-005;

| — | order the respondent to pay compensation in respect of the non-material harm and reputational damage suffered by the appellant, assessed at EUR 20 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay compensation in respect of the non-material harm and reputational damage suffered by the appellant, assessed at EUR 20 000;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs in their entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs in their entirety;

| — | order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant invokes four grounds.

| 1. | First ground, concerning the appellant’s financial liability, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) failed to rule on one of the complaints of the appellant concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the CST committed several errors of law and distorted the evidence in the case file. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground, concerning the appellant’s financial liability, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) failed to rule on one of the complaints of the appellant concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the CST committed several errors of law and distorted the evidence in the case file.

| 2. | Second ground, alleging procedural defects in the preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the contested decision, infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, breach of the obligation to state reasons and errors of law committed by the CST. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground, alleging procedural defects in the preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the contested decision, infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, breach of the obligation to state reasons and errors of law committed by the CST.

| 3. | Third ground, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons on the part of the Commission and the CST. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons on the part of the Commission and the CST.

| 4. | Fourth ground, alleging that the CST erred in law and fact in relation to the first complaint upheld against the appellant. Furthermore, the CST disregarded its obligation to provide reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground, alleging that the CST erred in law and fact in relation to the first complaint upheld against the appellant. Furthermore, the CST disregarded its obligation to provide reasons.

---