- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 24 September 2010. # Petrus Kerstens v European Commission. # Appeal - Public service - Officials - Promotion. # Case T-498/09 P.
ECLI:EU:T:2010:406
62009TO0498
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Reports of Cases
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber) 24 September 2010
(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion year — Award of priority points — Burden of proof — Rights of the defence — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Appeal: brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 in Case F-102/07 Kerstens v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-359 and II-A-1-1881, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Petrus Kerstens is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.
Summary
3. Procedure — Written procedure
It is therefore admissible in an appeal before the General Court for the official concerned to rely on an error of law in the interpretation of the provisions applicable to the reporting procedure for officials.
(see paras 25-26)
See: judgment of 19 March 2010 in T-338/07 P Bianchi v ETF, para. 61 and the case-law cited therein
EN ECLI:EU:T:2010:406
SUMMARY — CASE T-498/09 P KERSTENS v COMMISSION
(see para. 29)
See: judgment of 23 November 2006 in T-422/04 Lavagnoli v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 61 and 62; T-385/04 Valero Jordana v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-2-1 and II-A-2-1, paras 138 and 153
3. The oral procedure is, like the written procedure, an essential and, save in certain cases expressly provided for, compulsory part of the judicial procedure allowing the parties to present their arguments properly and, in particular, to submit observations on arguments or evidence on which they have not had the opportunity to express their views during the written procedure. Consequently, the fact that a party has not had the opportunity to present in writing some of his observations on the substance, because the Civil Service Tribunal decided to allow the submission of a rejoinder only on matters of admissibility, does not constitute an infringement of the rights of the defence.
(see para. 38)
See: 141/81 to 143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, para. 7; T-508/93 Mancini v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-761, paras 33 and 34
ECLI:EU:T:2010:406