CELEX: 62012TA0167
Language: en
Date: 2013-10-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-167/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Professional development — Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group — Distortion of evidence)

23.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 344/54
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Council v AY
   (Case T-167/12 P) (1)
   
   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Professional development - Success at examinations in the training programme for AST function group officials in the certification procedure for access to the AD function group - Distortion of evidence)
   2013/C 344/96
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)
   
      Other party: AY (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking the partial annulment of that judgment.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012, Case F-23/11 AY v Council, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote AY to AST grade 9 pursuant to the 2010 promotion procedure and in so far as it ordered the Council to pay all of the costs (points 1 and 4 of the operative part of that judgment).
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 180, 27.7.2012.