Case T-269/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2013 by Markus Brune against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11 Brune v Commission
Date: 2013-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), equal treatment, indemnification








C_2013207EN.01004501.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/45





Appeal brought on 19 May 2013 by Markus Brune against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11 Brune v Commission
(Case T-269/13 P)
2013/C 207/76
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Markus Brune (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by H. Mannes, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

In addition to maintaining the form of order sought at first instance, the appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 March 2013 in Case F-94/11;
in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for determination;










—


order the respondent/defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies in particular on the following pleas in law:






1.


Defects in the assessment of the obligation to repeat the test






—


The judgment under appeal fails to recognise that the repetition of the oral test pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2010 in Case F-5/08 Brune v Commission (‘the judgment in Brune’) breaches the principles of equal treatment and of objectivity in marking as well as Article 266 TFEU;










—


the grounds of the judgment include incorrect findings of law and an erroneous, in part contradictory, assessment of the facts, particularly in the light of the requirements of Article 266 TFEU, the principle of non-discrimination and the requirement of uniform assessment criteria.














2.


Failure to consider alternative solutions






—


The judgment under appeal rejects alternative solutions put forward pursuant to the judgment in Brune which, according to settled case-law, are required in the present case, and does so on grounds that are wrong in law;










—


in assessing alternative solutions, the judgment under appeal, in particular, misinterprets the principles of equal treatment and of objectivity in marking, Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the notice of competition.














3.


In the alternative: erroneous assessment of the procedural defects in the preparation of the new test






—


The statements in the judgment under appeal regarding the correct timing of the invitation [to the test] and the requisite information concerning the composition of the selection board and the relevant law reveal substantial errors in the assessment of the facts and of the respondent’s organisational duties;










—


the judgment under appeal fails to assess whether there has been unequal treatment of the appellant, in view of the additional information provided to another candidate in a parallel procedure;










—


as regards the complaint of bias in the selection board, the judgment under appeal confines itself to examining the lack of proof of discrimination against the appellant in the original procedure, without addressing the concern as to bias in the selection board in the context of the new test.














4.


Erroneous dismissal of the appellant’s third, fourth and fifth heads of claim as inadmissible






—


The judgment under appeal disregards the possibility of making general findings that are not in the nature of a specific obligation of the institutions of the European Union;










—


the judgment under appeal interprets the appellant’s claims for the damage suffered to be made good as meaning that no compensation is sought, although that was explicitly clarified at the hearing;










—


the judgment under appeal disregards the obligation arising from Article 266 TFEU to make good — including of [the institution’s] own motion, without an express application — the damage suffered.














5.


Discriminatory costs decision




The judgment under appeal discriminates against the appellant in comparison with the applicant in Case F-42/11 Honnefelder v Commission, in so far as the Tribunal failed to assess what was deemed in that case to be a relevant circumstance for the purposes of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure in a manner favourable to the appellant.