CELEX: 62012TN0167
Language: en
Date: 2012-04-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-167/12 P: Appeal brought on 4 April 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 February 2012 in Case F-23/11, AY v Council

23.6.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 184/17
            
         Appeal brought on 4 April 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 February 2012 in Case F-23/11, AY v Council
   (Case T-167/12 P)
   2012/C 184/31
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and A.-F. Jensen, acting as Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: AY (Bousval, Belgium)
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012 in Case F-23/11 AY v Council;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Refer the action back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay all the costs at first instance and at appeal.
            
         
      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 an error of law in the reasoning given by the CST when examining the plea in law raised at first instance alleging a disregard of Articles 24a and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in that the Council failed, in the comparative examination of the merits and, more particularly, vocational training, to take account of the success of the person concerned in the examination of the training programme provided for in the certification procedure of officials in function group AST to move to function group AD (paragraphs 23 to 32 of the judgment under appeal). The Council argues that the finding in paragraph 28 of the judgment that the certification of officials in function group AST constitutes, by definition, vocational training is incorrect in law or, at the very least, inexact.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and evidence (paragraphs 33 to 37 of the judgment under appeal), since, on the basis of the case-file, the CST had no ground to find, in paragraph 35 of the judgment under appeal that ‘the Appointing Authority took no account of the certification of officials in the comparative examination of their merits before drawing up the list of officials in grade AST 8 promoted to grade AST 9 in the 2010 promotion procedure’.