Case T-347/12 P: Appeal brought on 8 January 2013 by Dana Mocová against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 June 2012 in Case F-41/11 Mocová v Commission
Date: 2013-01-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative contract, administrative powers, administrator, general budget (EU), servant (EU), temporary employment








C_2013086EN.01001702.xml










23.3.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/17





Appeal brought on 8 January 2013 by Dana Mocová against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 June 2012 in Case F-41/11 Mocová v Commission
(Case T-347/12 P)
2013/C 86/28
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Dana Mocová (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

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 Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case F-41/11 Dana Mocová v European Commission;










—


Annul the decision rejecting the request for renewal of the appellant’s contract;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.






1.


First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law as regards the scope of the principle of legality, since the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) considered, first, that the reasons given by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) at the stage at which the complaint was rejected can be substituted for and alter the reasons given when the appellant’s request for extension of her contract as a member of the temporary staff was rejected and, second, that the reasoning is valid even those it is based on factors established after the contested measure was adopted. The appellant submits that:






—


if, in the present case, the appellant’s contract was not renewed on account of the rule prohibiting cumulative periods of service of more than eight years, the AECE was not subsequently entitled to state, in its response to the complaint, that the contract had not been renewed on account of budgetary constraints, the appellant’s merits and the interests of the service, and then go on to claim, before the Tribunal, that the only reason for non-renewal was budgetary constraints;










—


the CST is required, contrary to what is stated at paragraph 50 of the judgment under appeal, to examine the plea of illegality in respect of the eight year rule, a plea which was raised when the request for extension of the contract as a temporary member of staff was rejected.














2.


Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, on the basis that the CST took the view that the AECE had taken the contested decision with due regard to the interests of the service, even though the CST stated that the Commission had acknowledged at the hearing that only budgetary constraints could have been invoked at first instance as justification for the contested decision. The appellant also submits that the CST failed to have regard to its duty to state reasons and its duty to examine all the breaches of law alleged before it, in that it failed to make any reference to the appellant’s arguments concerning the contradiction between the reasons given relating to the laying off of staff due to budgetary constraints and the creation of new posts for temporary staff at Grade AD9.