CELEX: 62011TN0098
Language: en
Date: 2011-02-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-98/11 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2011 by AG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case F-25/10 AG v Parliament

16.4.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 120/15
            
         Appeal brought on 17 February 2011 by AG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case F-25/10 AG v Parliament
   (Case T-98/11 P)
   2011/C 120/36
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: AG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the present appeal admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the order made by the Civil Service Tribunal on 16 December 2010 in Case F-25/10;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Grant the forms of order sought as regards annulment and indemnity submitted by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Parliament to pay the costs of both instances.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises a single plea in law, alleging distortion of the evidence adduced before the Judge at first instance, breach of the principle of legal certainty and infringement of the right to an effective remedy, in that:
   
               —
            
            
               there is no document in the file which enables the CST to take the view that the appellant lacked diligence in not having her post forwarded during her end-of-year holidays, during which period the post official came to her home to deliver to her the registered letter from the Parliament with its response to her claim;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the CST did not make clear what was to be understood by ‘extended’ holidays;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the CST took the view that the non-delivery notice which the appellant found in her letterbox on her return from holiday obviously related to the registered letter from the Parliament with its response to her claim.