Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:729
Date: 2016-12-14
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;Staff cases;Action for damages
Origin: Belgium

Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Viara Todorova Androva against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in Case F-78/12, Todorova Androva v Council (Case T-366/15 P) Language of the case: French Parties Appellant: Viara Todorova Androva (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer) Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union Form of order sought by the appellant Set aside the judgment of 29 April 2015 in Case F-78/12 and the General Court itself rule in the action; In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; Order the Council to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law. 1. First plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) took the view that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union did not permit account to be taken, for the purposes of entry on the list of promotable officials, the seniority acquired as a member of the temporary staff. 2. Second plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the case was not covered by the case-law of the Court of Justice in the judgment of 8 September 2011 in Rosado Santana (C-177/10, ECR, EU:C:2011:557), but by that in the order of 7 March 2013 in Rivas Montes (C-178/12, EU:C:2013:150). 3. Third plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST took the view that the plea alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment was inadmissible since it did not state the exact names of the candidates promoted in the place of the applicant. 4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the plea alleging infringement of the duty of care was inadmissible since there were discrepancies between the claim and the application. ____________