CELEX: 62016TN0725
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-725/16: Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Palos Caravina v CdT

12.12.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/32
            
         Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Palos Caravina v CdT
   (Case T-725/16)
   (2016/C 462/42)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Maria José Palos Caravina (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision refusing to grant her application to have communicated to her the decision to appoint Ms [X] to the Spanish translation team announced in October 2015 and, in so far as is necessary, the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision of 5 July 2016 rejecting the complaint against that refusal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
   She considers that the announcement of a person’s ‘arrival’ in a service in no way fulfils the obligation to publish appointment decisions laid down in Article 25 and, in the absence of proper publication, each member of staff has the right to require that the appointment decision at issue be communicated. That right was, therefore, infringed in the present case by the Appointing Authority of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) in adopting the contested decision, namely, the decision of 23 December 2015 refusing to communicate to the applicant the decision in question.
   The applicant also submits that the act of relying on Regulation No 45/2001, relating to the protection of personal data, against that right, stemming from Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is ineffective, because even if an appointment decision fell within the scope of the data protected by that regulation, Article 25 would have to be considered a lex specialis, conferring a right of access on third parties.