CELEX: 62016TN0678
Language: en
Date: 2016-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-678/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Sergio Siragusa against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016 in Case F-124/15, Siragusa v Council

14.11.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 419/55
            
         Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Sergio Siragusa against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016 in Case F-124/15, Siragusa v Council
   (Case T-678/16 P)
   (2016/C 419/72)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Sergio Siragusa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016, served on 14 July 2016, Siragusa v Council of the European Union (F-124/15);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Refer to the substance of the action and set aside the order under appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both instances.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law.
   He is of the opinion that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the classification in law of the Council’s decision validating his early retirement of 11 July 2013. In consequence, he submits that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 November 2014 refusing his early retirement must be regarded as an adverse measure withdrawing the earlier decision accepting his early retirement and not as a mere decision confirming an implied rejection decision.
   The appellant submits, finally, that since the decision of 12 November 2014 was contested within the period prescribed for that purpose, the action brought at first instance is admissible and its merits must be examined.