CELEX: 62015TN0684
Language: en
Date: 2015-11-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-684/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2015 by Roderich Weissenfels against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 September 2015 in Case F-92/14, Weissenfels v Parliament

15.2.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 59/26
            
         Appeal brought on 27 November 2015 by Roderich Weissenfels against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 September 2015 in Case F-92/14, Weissenfels v Parliament
   (Case T-684/15 P)
   (2016/C 059/28)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Roderich Weissenfels (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant the form of order sought at first instance and
            
         
               —
            
            
               consequently order the Parliament to pay the damages for non-material harm sought and to pay the costs of proceedings at both instances, including those of the pre-litigation procedure and all necessary expenses and disbursements of the appellant.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By means of the present appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 September 2015 in Weissenfels v Parliament (F-92/14, ECR-SC, EU:F:2015:110).
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law: Breach of the requirement of impartiality (the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
               The appellant asserts that both the judicial proceedings which led to the judgment under appeal and the judgment itself are consistently characterised by recurrent breaches of the requirement of impartiality. Those breaches are obvious in both subsidiary proceedings and in breaches of law which are relevant for the decision.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law: Denial of justice, infringement of the principles of logic and distortion of the facts with regard to the refusal to have the fulfilment of criminal offences examined
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law: Infringement of the principles of logic, distortion of the facts and manifestly incorrect assessment in respect of the disputed slanderous claim contained in the e-mail of 10 April 2002
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law: Distortion of the facts and of the subject-matter of the proceedings, infringement of the principles of logic, disregard for the law and breach of law with regard to the passing on of the appellant’s personal data