Case T-94/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2013 by Ioannis Ntouvas against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012 in Case F-107/11 Ntouvas v ECDC
Date: 2013-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: disease prevention, health care, servant (EU)








C_2013114EN.01003901.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/39





Appeal brought on 17 February 2013 by Ioannis Ntouvas against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012 in Case F-107/11 Ntouvas v ECDC
(Case T-94/13 P)
2013/C 114/62
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ioannis Ntouvas (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (Stockholm, Sweden)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012 in Case F-107/11 Ntouvas v ECDC dismissing the action for annulment of the appellant’s appraisal report for 2010 and ordering him to pay all costs;










—


Annul the decision contested at first instance; and










—


Order the defendant to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on fourteen pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of a rule of law relating to burden, and administration, of proof, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal granted the respondent’s request for an extension of the time-limit for lodging its defence at first instance although the respondent had not provided evidence of the circumstances it claimed justified such extension.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging substantial error in the finding of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal found that the date of service, on the respondent, of the application at first instance was 7 November 2011 and not 4 November 2011.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging erroneous appraisal of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously read, and appraised, the documents in the file disproving the arguments advanced by the respondent in support of its request for an extension of the time-limit for lodging its defence at first instance.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging erroneous legal classification of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously considered as ‘exceptional’ the circumstances which the respondent invoked when requesting the extension of the time-limit for lodging its defence at first instance.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging error in the finding, subsidiarily in the legal classification of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously found that the appellant had not applied for a judgment by default, subsidiarily that his statements did not constitute an application for a judgment by default.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging erroneous appraisal of documents on the case-file, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal held that two positions in the respondent’s services were significantly different from each other.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging error in the establishment of the burden of proof, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal rejected, for lack of evidence, the appellant’s plea that at least one of the members of the respondent’s Joint Committee for Appraisals was in conflict of interest, although said evidence consisted in documents identified in the application at first instance and readily available to the respondent; in the alternative, the Tribunal failed to observe its duty, as an administrative court of law adjudicating an employment dispute, of ordering the necessary measures of organisation of procedure in order to obtain said documents. Moreover, the Tribunal misread the legal basis of the appellant’s plea and misinterpreted Article 9(6) of the Implementing rule No 20 on Appraisals (‘the Implementing rule’), adopted by the director of the ECDC on 17 April 2009.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of, and failure to examine, a plea in law alleging the lack of rules of procedure for the ECDC Joint Committee for Appraisals.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging distortion of evidence, subsidiarily legal classification of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal considered unsubstantiated the appellant’s plea that the ECDC Joint Committee had failed to verify the elements it was obliged to verify under Article 9(4) of the Implementing rule.










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging erroneous appraisal, subsidiarily legal classification, of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal considered sufficient the reasoning of the opinion of the ECDC Joint Committee for Appraisals.










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of a plea in law, and error in the legal classification of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal misinterpreted the appellant’s plea of insufficient reasoning of the opinion of the respondent’s Joint Committee for Appraisals as being one of manifest error of assessment; and viewed said reasoning as sufficient.










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging erroneous appraisal of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal held that the contested appraisal report was not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as to the appellant’s efficiency in terms of workload.










13.


Thirteenth plea in law, alleging erroneous legal classification of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal considered proportional the criticism in the contested appraisal report, even though the respondent had not, during the appraisal period, brought to the appellant’s notice the supposed problems in his conduct.










14.


Fourteenth plea in law, alleging erroneous appraisal of fact, insofar as the Civil Service Tribunal viewed the appellant’s workload as being less significant than it actually was.