- 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-622/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2011 by Francesca Cervelli against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 September 2011 in Case F-98/10, Cervelli v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0622
62011TN0622
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
4.2.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 32/37
—
(Case T-622/11 P)
2012/C 32/74
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Francesca Cervelli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellant
—Admit the appeal and declare it admissible;
—Regard the appeal as having been brought in the name and for the benefit of Ms Francesca Cervelli by her legal representatives;
—Declare the order delivered on 12 September 2011 by the Civil Service Tribunal void in its entirety;
—Order the matter to be referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal for examination of the substance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, since the CST took the view that the appellant could not rely on the emergence of a new fact consisting in the judgment delivered by the General Court on 19 June 2007 in Case T-473/04 Asturias Cuerno v Commission, not published in the ECR. The appellant submits that that judgment constitutes a new fact, since the judgment concerns the same situation as that of the appellant and since the main part of the analysis in that judgment concerns an objective point and not facts particular to the case.
Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in law, since the CST gave absolute priority to the discretion based on the principle of the autonomy of the Appointing Authority over the principle of unity of the civil service.
—