CELEX: 62019CN0583
Language: en
Date: 2019-07-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-583/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2019 by Belén Bernaldo de Quirós against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 June 2019 in Case T-273/18 Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

20.1.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 19/6
            
         
      Appeal brought on 30 July 2019 by Belén Bernaldo de Quirós against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 June 2019 in Case T-273/18 Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
      (Case C-583/19 P)
      (2020/C 19/08)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul the judgment of 5 June 2019, Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission (T-273/18);
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the Commission to pay all of the 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 a single ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the facts, a manifest error of assessment and an imprecise reasoning in law.
      In the context of the second plea in law submitted before the General Court, the appellant relied on the infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence within the framework of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. The General Court ruled on that plea in paragraphs 81 to 94 of the judgment under appeal.
      The appellant argues that the General Court’s findings are substantially incorrect. She submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error in law and a manifest error of assessment in that, first, the internal rules cannot justify non-compliance with a statutory provision and, secondly, the general implementing provisions in question do not provide the delegation of powers of the appointing authority, Lastly, the interpretation of the provisions of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and Article 4(4) of the general implementing provisions resulted in an imprecise reasoning in law.