CELEX: 62016TN0464
Language: en
Date: 2016-08-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-464/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2016 by HI against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15, HI v Commission

10.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 371/24
            
         Appeal brought on 22 August 2016 by HI against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15, HI v Commission
   (Case T-464/16 P)
   (2016/C 371/26)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: HI (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   The appellant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of 10 June 2016 in Case F-133/15 and itself rule on the case;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds.
   
               1.
            
            
               First ground, alleging breach of EU law in relation to the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence, in so far as the appointing authority of the European Commission did not set out in detail the reasons behind its decision to impose on the appellant, by way of disciplinary penalty, a downgrading by two grades within the same function group.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second ground, alleging breaches of EU law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) committed in relation to observance of a reasonable period, the rights of the defence and the obligation to state reasons. The CST, moreover, distorted the facts and evidence.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third ground, alleging distortion of facts and evidence and breaches of EU law and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, committed by the CST.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth ground, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality committed by the CST.