CELEX: 62018CN0045
Language: en
Date: 2018-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-45/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by Claire Staelen against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 28 November 2017 in Case T-217/11 REV, Staelen v European Ombudsman

19.3.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 104/23
            
         Appeal brought on 22 January 2018 by Claire Staelen against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 28 November 2017 in Case T-217/11 REV, Staelen v European Ombudsman
   (Case C-45/18 P)
   (2018/C 104/29)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside order T-217/11 REV;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare admissible the application for revision of judgment T-217/11;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the respondent to pay all costs in relation to all of the proceedings.
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   In support of the appeal, the appellant advances several grounds of appeal alleging:
   
               —
            
            
               partial illegality of Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of Article 169(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               distortion of the facts and error of law in so far as the General Court classified the decision of 19 May 2005 simultaneously as a list of suitable candidates and as a decision extending the validity of the list of suitable candidates;
            
         
               —
            
            
               error of law in so far as the General Court held that a decision which was not notified to all of its addressees is challengeable, as well as infringement of the principle of equal treatment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               distortion of the facts and manifestly contradictory findings of the General Court concerning the respondent’s alleged lack of diligence, as well as infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations;
            
         
               —
            
            
               lack of reasoning on the decisive nature of the new facts.