Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/36

—

(Case T-689/14 P)

(2014/C 431/59)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (represented by P. Empadinhas and by C. Meidanis, lawyer)

Other party to the appeal: Aristides Psarras (Heraklion, Greece)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

—set aside in its entirety the judgment of 2 July 2014 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-63/13;

—reject in their entirety the claims made by the applicant at first instance in Case F-63/13; and

—order the applicant at first instance to pay all the legal costs, both before the Civil Service Tribunal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal the appellant relies on five grounds.

1.The first ground of appeal claims a distortion of the facts as regards the events of 4 May 2012 and the subsequent period, and an error of law as regards Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Union (together with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union).

2.The second ground of appeal claims an error of law, with regard to Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, in so far as it was held that a ruling that that provision has been infringed entails ipso jure and automatically the annulment of the contested decision, disregarding the case-law in accordance with which the applicant should additionally have proved that, in the absence of that infringement, the content of the contested decision would have been different, and on the basis of the new interpretation of the provision in the ruling that the previous case-law ‘renders [the provision] wholly meaningless’.

3.The third ground of appeal claims a breach of the obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to answer the defendant’s objections of inadmissibility and an insufficient statement of reasons and in addition breach of the obligation to uphold the preliminary procedure for an application for compensation.

4.The fourth ground of appeal claims disregard of the case-law to the effect that the annulment of the contested decision can itself constitute adequate compensation, insufficient statement of reasons, the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled ultra vires and manifest error of assessment

5.The fifth ground of appeal claims a suspected lack of impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal.

—