CELEX: 62015TN0297
Language: en
Date: 2015-06-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-297/15 P: Appeal brought on 8 June 2015 by Ángel Coedo Suárez against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-38/14, Coedo Suárez v Council

27.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 245/44
            
         Appeal brought on 8 June 2015 by Ángel Coedo Suárez against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-38/14, Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case T-297/15 P)
   (2015/C 245/53)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present appeal admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Coedo Suárez v Council (F-38/14, EU:F:2015:25);
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant the application for annulment made by the appellant at first instance;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of 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 a distortion of the facts and evidence, and an error of law, in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appointing authority had not committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the appellant’s ill health did not constitute an extenuating circumstance.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.