Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:74
Date: 2017-02-14
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases;Appeal - successful

Appeal brought on 28 May 2016 by Petrus Kerstens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2016 in Case F-23/15, Kerstens v Commission (Case T-270/16 P) Language of the case: French Parties Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by C. Mourato, lawyer) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought by the appellant The appellant claims that the General Court should: set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2016 in Kerstens v Commission (Case F-23/15); refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union; order the respondent to pay the costs. Grounds of appeal and main arguments In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds. First ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence and inconsistent reasoning as regards the absence of an administrative inquiry report within the meaning of Articles 2 to 4 of the 2004 general implementing provisions concerning the conduct of administrative inquiries and disciplinary procedures (‘the 2004 GIPs’). Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law linked to the lack of annulment of a disciplinary decision not based on an administrative inquiry report within the meaning of the 2004 GIPs. Third ground of appeal, alleging inconsistency in the grounds of the judgment, breach of the obligation to state reasons, distortion of the facts and evidence, infringement of Article 4(4) of the 2004 GIPs and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of the separation of powers between the judicial and administrative authorities, breach of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita, of the adversarial principle and of the principle of non-discrimination, as well as errors of law in relation to the examination by the Civil Service Tribunal of the consequences of the irregularities committed by the Commission. Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and breach of the adversarial principle linked to a misinterpretation of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 10 of Annex IX thereto. Fifth ground of appeal, put forward in the alternative, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence, breach of the obligation to state reasons and an error of law in respect of the principle that disciplinary matters must be dealt with within a reasonable period of time. ____________