11.5.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/16

—

(Case C-892/19 P)

(2020/C 161/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Camelia Manéa (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CdT)

Form of order sought

—Set aside the judgment of 12 September 2019 (T-225/18);

—Rule again on the action and grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance;

—Order the CdT to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her appeal the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal:

The first ground of appeal, relating to paragraphs 36 to 38 of the judgment under appeal, alleges distortion of the factual and legal basis of the first plea in law of the application.

The second ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 43 of the judgment under appeal, alleges a breach of the rules of evidence, a substantially incorrect assessment based on an incomplete examination of the file, a distortion of the evidence, and a distortion of a document in the case file.

The third ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 44 of the judgment under appeal, alleges contradictory reasoning, a distortion or substantially inaccurate assessment of the decision of 10 June 2016 arising from an incomplete examination of the case file, and breach of the duty to restore the previous situation taking account of legality.

The fourth ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, alleges distortion of the grounds of the decision of 29 May 2017.

The fifth ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal, alleges distortion of the plea in law contained in the application concerning the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons.

The sixth ground of appeal alleges a contraction in the reasoning in paragraphs 81 and 83 of the judgment under appeal.

The seventh ground of appeal, relating to paragraph 84 of the judgment under appeal, alleges a distortion of the arguments, a substantially inaccurate assessment arising from an incomplete examination of the case file and the inadequacy of the General Court’s response to the appellant’s arguments.

—