CELEX: 62016TN0668
Language: en
Date: 2016-09-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-668/16 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2016 by HL against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-112/15 HL v Commission

28.11.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 441/22
            
         
      Appeal brought on 19 September 2016 by HL against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-112/15 HL v Commission
      (Case T-668/16 P)
      (2016/C 441/26)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: HL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Rata, 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 judgment of 20 July 2016 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-112/15;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 14 November 2014 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission, issued by means of the Administrative Notice No 41-2014, establishing the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014 in so far as the name of the appellant is not included therein;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the appellant.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging errors of law in rejecting the applicant’s first plea as unfounded. The appellant argues that the Civil Service Tribunal committed four main errors with regards to his first plea in law:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              first, the Tribunal established, in contravention to applicable case law, that it does not need to review the legality of the Appointing Authority’s actions if the Appointing Authority declares that it has satisfied its legal duties and obligations;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              second, the Tribunal was erroneous in dismissing the Joint Monitoring Committee Report as evidence and failing to effectively consider the demonstrated incomparability found in the sources of information used by the Appointing Authority;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              third, the Tribunal erroneously ignored — without justification — the existence of the argument and evidence put forward by the appellant regarding the mathematical evaluation of the Appointing Authority’s literary assessment methodology as well as the entire second branch of his first plea in law;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              fourth, the Tribunal was erroneous in its presumption that absence of an effective evaluation of comparative merits cannot give rise to annulment of a decision on promotion.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, the appellant argues that the Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law with regards to his second plea in law:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              first by arbitrarily limiting the scope and applicability of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations as well as the appellant’s fundamental rights under Union law in a manner incompatible with the will of the Union legislature; and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              second, by rejecting the appellant’s second plea as unfounded on manifestly erroneous grounds.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a failure to conduct an impartial and effective judicial review, giving rise to a violation of the appellant’s right to an effective remedy, the appellant argues that:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              first, the Judge-Rapporteur made prejudicial statements demonstrating subjective bias in the Preparatory Report which pre-emptively decided the outcome of the appellant’s pleas in law;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              second, the President of the Tribunal failed to recuse the Judge and transfer the case to a different Chamber while admitting that the contested prejudicial statements were copied and pasted from a different case involving different applicants;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              third, the Tribunal selectively ignored and dismissed crucial arguments and evidence without consideration or review. In conclusion, the appellant considers that his right to an effective remedy has been violated by the Tribunal due to its failure to conduct an impartial and effective judicial review.