CELEX: 62016TN0250
Language: en
Date: 2016-05-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-250/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Sergio Spadafora against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016 in Case F-44/15, Spadafora v Commission

11.7.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 251/41
            
         Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Sergio Spadafora against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016 in Case F-44/15, Spadafora v Commission
   (Case T-250/16 P)
   (2016/C 251/47)
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Sergio Spadafora (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by G. Belotti)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the order under appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               rule on the merits of the proceedings at first instance, upholding all the claims made by the appellant in that application, including the claim for damages which it is for this Court to quantify in a fair manner;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs in both cases.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 April 2016, which dismissed, as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded, an action seeking essentially, first, the annulment of the decision of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) not to consider further the appellant’s application for the position of head of the ‘Legal Advice’ unit and, second, the claim for the payment of damages by the European Commission stemming from, in the appellant’s opinion, loss of chance of being selected to occupy that post.
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging certain defects in the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal, adversely affecting the appellant’s interests.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The appellant claims in particular, in that respect, that there are no arguments in the order under appeal relating to the alleged manifestly unfounded nature of the action.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging substantial inaccuracy of the factual findings when viewed in the light of the documents in the case.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The appellant claims, in particular, in that respect, that the candidate selected for the post at issue lacked experience and the requirements of balanced geographical representation and equality of merits were incorrectly assessed.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law, resulting from the failure to apply, during the pre-selection stage, the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality and that of non-discrimination on the ground of language.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging the incorrect legal characterisation of the facts
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging the incorrect ‘legal characterisation’ of the applicant’s plea in law requesting the Civil Service Tribunal to extend the effects of the annulment of the decision under appeal and thereby declare the selection procedure at issue invalid from the point at which the ‘unlawful act established’ occurred.