CELEX: 62016TN0701
Language: en
Date: 2016-09-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-701/16 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of 21 July 2016 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-91/15, AV v Commission

16.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 14/37
            
         Appeal brought on 30 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of 21 July 2016 by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-91/15, AV v Commission
   (Case T-701/16 P)
   (2017/C 014/45)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: European Commission (represented by C. Berardis-Kayser, T. S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: AV (Cadrezzate, Italy)
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment under appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Refer the case back to the court of first instance;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Reserve the costs.
            
         
      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 the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) committed two errors of law. In the first place, the CST annulled the contested decision, namely the decision of the Commission, of 16 September 2014, to apply to the other party in the proceedings the medical reservation clause provided for in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and to refuse to award him an invalidity allowance, notwithstanding the fact that a decision may be annulled only exceptionally on the ground of infringement of the reasonable time principle. In the second place, the CST wrongly found that the excessive delay in taking the decision could affect the very content of the decision. The appellant alleges, moreover, an infringement of the duty to provide reasons with regard to that second aspect.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law resulting from the fact that, as the CST annulled the contested decision by holding that the delay in the conduct of administrative procedures, which was found to be excessive, affected the very content of the decision, the judgment under appeal disregarded the principle of res judicata.