CELEX: 62015TN0309
Language: en
Date: 2015-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-309/15 P: Appeal brought on 5 June 2015 by CW against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-124/13 CW v Parliament

20150731056617072015/C 270/463092015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150605373711Case T-309/15 P: Appeal brought on 5 June 2015 by CW against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-124/13 CW v Parliament
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3710120150605EN0046371371Appeal brought on 5 June 2015 by CW against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-124/13 CW v Parliament
   (Case T-309/15 P)2015/C 270/46Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: CW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            declare the appeal admissible;
         
      
            —
         
         
            set aside the judgment under appeal;
         
      
            —
         
         
            annul the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint;
         
      
            —
         
         
            award damages; and
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
         
      
      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 that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted evidence and erred in law in finding that, in the decision rejecting the complaint, the appointing authority sought to endorse the substance of the decision refusing assistance.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted evidence and erred in law in considering that the Parliament did not make a manifest error of assessment in its choice of measures and methods for applying Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.