Case T-634/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-72/10, da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
Date: 2011-12-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appointment of members, area of freedom, security and justice, equal treatment, public contract, rights of the defence








C_2012032EN.01004002.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/40





Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-72/10, da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
(Case T-634/11 P)
2012/C 32/80
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission.

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 (Case F-72/10 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission) dismissing the action of the applicant,






—


Annul the decision of the European Commission rejecting the applicant’s application for the vacant post of Director of Directorate E ‘Justice’ in Directorate General (DG) Justice, Freedom and Security and the decision appointing Ms K to that post.









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 in that the Tribunal should have dismissed the plea alleging a misuse of power in spite of serious indications of such misuse relied on by the applicant, whereas the Court should reverse the burden of proof in order to comply with the principle of equality of arms in proceedings before the Tribunal










2.


Second plea in law, alleging disregard for the equality of arms of the parties by refusing to order the production, among others, of Ms K’s staff report for the period in which she exercised the function of director in Directorate ‘Security’ in DG ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’, whereas the Appointing Authority justifies the rejection of her application for that post by a plausible inaptitude in the light of her performance as acting director, while taking the view that she may be appointed to the post of director in Directorate ‘Justice’ in the same DG in the light of that same experience as director.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging distortion and misrepresentation of the facts in that the CST should have concluded that the two appeal procedures for the post of director (‘Justice’ and ‘Security’) were separate and that the outcome of one of those procedures has not influenced the outcome of the other.










4.


Fourth plea in law alleging infringement of the rule that the parties should be heard, breach of the rights of the defence and of the duty to state reasons in that the CST failed to make reference to the manifest error of assessment raised by the applicant at the hearing, based on the evaluation grid of the pre-selection board which the applicant became aware of in the annex to the defence, since the CST held that there was no need for a second exchange of pleadings.