CELEX: 62013TN0356
Language: en
Date: 2013-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-356/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11, Lebedef v Commission

12.10.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 298/8
            
         Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11, Lebedef v Commission
   (Case T-356/13 P)
   2013/C 298/14
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, 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 the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11 Lebedef v Commission, in respect of an application for annulment of the decision in disciplinary proceedings of 6 July 2010 downgrading the appellant by two grades in the same function group;
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal relating to paragraphs 35, 36, 44, 45, 56, 57, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 86, 95 and 96 of the judgment under appeal, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and infringement of the principle of prohibition of arbitrary action, since the Civil Service Tribunal distorted and misinterpreted the facts and misread and misinterpreted the application at first instance and the contested decision.