CELEX: 62015TN0734
Language: en
Date: 2015-12-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-734/15 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission

22.2.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 68/36
            
         Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission
   (Case T-734/15 P)
   (2016/C 068/46)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: European Commission (represented by F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: FE (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission;
            
         
               —
            
            
               dismiss the action brought by FE in Case F-119/14 as unfounded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               decide that each of the parties is to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order FE to pay the costs of the proceedings brought before the Civil Service Tribunal.
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.
   
               1.
            
            
               First ground, alleging a number of errors of law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) and a distortion of the documents in the file in the selection board’s interpretation and application of the condition for admission relating to minimum professional experience.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second ground, alleging an error of law in the CST’s conclusion that the Appointing Authority committed a manifest error of assessment.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third ground, alleging an error of law and a number of breaches of the obligation to state reasons committed by the CST in ordering the Commission to pay EUR 10 000 to the applicant at first instance.