Case T-116/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-70/11, Lebedef v Commission
Date: 2013-02-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, reassignment, report, union representative








C_2013147EN.01001902.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/19





Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-70/11, Lebedef v Commission
(Case T-116/13 P)
2013/C 147/35
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the order of the CST of 12 December 2012 in Case F-70/11 Lebedef v Commission seeking the annulment of the applicant’s evaluation report for the period 1.1. 2008 — 31.12.2008 and, more specifically, the part of the report drafted by EUROSTAT for the same period;










—


grant the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;










—


alternatively, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










—


make an order as to costs and order the European Commission 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 in that the CST held that the appellant was not designated to participate in consultations and that his participation in those consultations was covered by the half time discharge from duties for trade union purposes which he enjoyed (paragraphs 41 to 45 of the order under appeal).










2.


Second plea in law alleging an error of law in that the CST found that the special procedure for the assessment of staff representatives covers all trade union activities and incorrectly interpreted the reasons for which the appellant did not work for the department to which he had been assigned and held that the appellant could no longer challenge the competence of the assessors (points 50 and 51 of the order under appeal).










3.


Third plea in law alleging an error of law in that the CST based its decision on incorrect findings concerning, in particular, the powers of the assessors to evaluate the appellant solely on the basis of his work for the department to which he was assigned, and the fact that he relied on the half time discharge from the performance of his duties for trade union purposes in order to justify the fact that he did not work for the service to which he was assigned (paragraphs 59 and 60 of the order under appeal).










4.


Fourth plea in law alleging an error of law in that the CST concluded that the facts in the present case are distinguishable from those that gave rise to the judgment in Case F-36/07 Lebedef v Commission ECR Staff Cases I-A-1-143 and II-A-1-759 and that performance level IV could legitimately be attributed to the appellant (paragraphs 69 to 70 of the order under appeal).