Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:758
Date: 2017-10-26
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Appeals Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases;Action for damages

Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by HB against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission (Case T-706/16 P) Language of the case: French Parties Appellant: HB (Schweich, Germany) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission Form of order sought by the appellant The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission; giving judgment itself, annul the decision not to promote the appellant under the 2014 promotion exercise; order the Commission to pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of non-material harm; order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. Grounds of appeal and main arguments In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds, alleging several errors of law on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST). First, the appellant alleges that the CST erred in law in taking the view that the appointing authority had carried out an effective comparative assessment of the merit points, that is to say, on an objective and equal basis, whereas it confined itself to disregarding the appellant’s merit points for 2013, because the 2013 staff report did not contain an assessment, without attempting to obtain comparable sources of information or information. Second, the appellant considers that the CST erred in law in finding that the absence of an assessment in the 2013 staff report is attributable to the appellant and that the appointing authority was prevented from assessing the merit points for that year by the fact that there was no challenge by the appellant within the period prescribed in the Staff Regulations. Third, the CST, according to the appellant, erred in law in finding that she had not adduced evidence to show that there was discrimination based on gender, whereas her staff report lacks any substantial assessment exclusively because of her long-term absences justified by her periods of maternity leave and pregnancy-related illness. ____________