CELEX: 62018CN0139
Language: en
Date: 2018-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-139/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-602/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

201806010421917352018/C 211/121392018CJC21120180618EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL2018022191021Case C-139/18 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-602/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
 ---documentbreak--- C2112018EN910120180221EN001291102Appeal brought on 21 February 2018 by CJ against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2017 in Case T-602/16: CJ v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
   (Case C-139/18 P)2018/C 211/12Language of the case: English
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, Δικηγόρος)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 in Case T-602/16 CJ v ECDC (EU:T:2017:893) in whole;
         
      
            —
         
         
            consequently, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded, annul the contested appraisal report of 21 September 2015;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the ECDC to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law:
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging that the General Court:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     misinterpreted Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 3(3), of the ECDC Implementing Rule No 20 to determine that the appeal assessor need not be the Chairman of the Management Board in cases such as the instant case,
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     erred in legally classifying the facts when it held that the Chairman of the Management Board was in any case unlikely to find in favour of the appellant,
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     misinterpreted the argument according to which a subordinate to the reporting officer cannot be the appeal assessor, because he lacks the necessary independence from the reporting officer.
                  
               
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     misinterpreted Articles 7(1), 8(3) and (4) of the ECDC Implementing Rule No 20 to determine that objectives and performance indicators set for a servant during the previous appraisal period may be disregarded by the reporting officer,
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     subsidiarily, erred in legally classifying the facts when it found that objectives and performance indicators had been duly considered by the reporting officer.
                  
               
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     misinterpreted the notion of ‘dialogue’ under Article 8(9) of the ECDC Implementing Rule,
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     subsidiarily erred in law in legally classifying an appraisal ‘dialogue’ as one that can be limited, on the part of ECDC, to the countersigning officer asking a servant for a document already available to her; addressing, from her mobile telephone, to the servant the question ‘Which aspects of the performance assessment do you consider as false?’; and not asking any further question, after a servant replies in substance and offers to give her any further, more specific information she may require.
                  
               
      
            4.
         
         
            Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court:
            
                     —
                  
                  
                     misinterpreted Article 22a of the Staff Regulations when it found, essentially, that, even where a servant alleges, in tempore non suspecto, financial mismanagement, offers at least the beginning of proof thereof, and those allegations are true, an agency is right to have his yearly performance appraised by the very persons his allegations implicate,
                  
               
                     —
                  
                  
                     subsidiarily, erred in law in legally classifying the appellant’s allegations as ones that were neither made in tempore non suspecto nor were true or supported by evidence and that the officers implicated by the allegations were still capable of neutrally assessing the appellant’s performance.