- 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
Case T-792/14 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Eric Vanhalewyn against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0792
62014TN0792
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 46/57
—
(Case T-792/14 P)
(2015/C 046/73)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Eric Vanhalewyn (Grand Baie, Mauritius) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS;
—give judgment itself:
—annulling the contested decision;
—ordering the EEAS to pay the costs of both proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
It results from the appeal that the appellant applies to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS.
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) held, first, that the failure, by the EEAS, to adopt the general provisions (‘GP’) of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the regulations’) was justified by the fact that the EEAS was still, as regards the application of that provision, in an adjustment period and, secondly, that the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt the GP can be successfully invoked by the appellant only where he shows that the EEAS applied that provision arbitrarily.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the EEAS had correctly reasoned the contested decision although the reasons which led the EEAS to diverge from the negative opinion of the Staff Committee were not set out.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law since it held that the EEAS could, in the absence of GP, take into account other parameters than those provided for by the regulations in order to assess the severity of the difficulty of the conditions of life in the places of employment of officials outside the European Union.
—