CELEX: 62016TN0646
Language: en
Date: 2016-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-646/16 P: Appeal brought on 6 September 2016 by Erik Simpson against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2016 in Case F-142/11 RENV Simpson v Council

14.11.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 419/51
            
         Appeal brought on 6 September 2016 by Erik Simpson against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2016 in Case F-142/11 RENV Simpson v Council
   (Case T-646/16 P)
   (2016/C 419/67)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 24 June 2016 in Case 142/11 RENV Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it rejects the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the applicant has to bear its own costs and the costs of the Council;
            
         
               —
            
            
               refer the case to the First Instance Judge, if needed; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs of these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that, regarding the obligation to state grounds the CST has made an error in law, has infringed the European law, has not provided its order with the prescribed grounds and has distorted evidence.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that, regarding the principle of equal treatment and the manifest error of appraisal the appellant alleges that the CST has distorted evidence, has made an error in law, has infringed the European law and has not provided the contested order with a sufficient motivation.