CELEX: 62018CN0506
Language: en
Date: 2018-08-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-506/18 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2018 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2018 in Case T-566/16: Josefsson v European Parliament

10.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 445/3
            
         
      Appeal brought on 1 August 2018 by the European Parliament against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2018 in Case T-566/16: Josefsson v European Parliament
      (Case C-506/18 P)
      (2018/C 445/03)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: Erik Josefsson
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the judgment under appeal;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  consequently, dismiss the application at first instance;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the parties to bear their own costs in the present proceedings;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order Mr Josefsson to pay the costs at first instance.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In its appeal, Parliament relies on the following grounds:
      
                  (i)
               
               
                  error of law, distortion of the facts and failure to state reasons in the finding that the requirement of a qualification in law was the cause of the applicant's dismissal;
               
            
                  (ii)
               
               
                  error of law in its finding that the adoption of an organigram and the decisions relating to it and the description of the posts therein must be subject to the applicant's right to be heard;
               
            
                  (iii)
               
               
                  distortion of the facts, manifest error of assessment and lack of reasoning in the conclusion that, if the applicant had also been heard on the question of his possession of a qualification in law, that hearing could have effectively changed the result of the decision-making process in question.