24.9.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/6

—

(Case C-427/18 P)

(2018/C 341/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado, F.-M. Hislaire, avocat, S. Moya Izquierdo, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: Ruben Alba Aguilera, Simone Barenghi, Massimo Bonannini, Antonio Capone, Stéphanie Carette, Alejo Carrasco Garcia, Francisco Carreras Sequeros, Carl Daspect, Nathalie Devos, Jean-Baptiste Fauvel, Paula Cristina Fernandes, Stephan Fox, Birgitte Hagelund, Chantal Hebberecht, Karin Kaup-Laponin, Terhi Lehtinen, Sandrine Marot, David Mogollon, Clara Molera Gui, Daniele Morbin, Charlotte Onraet, Augusto Piccagli, Gary Quince, Pierre-Luc Vanhaeverbeke, Tamara Vleminckx, Birgit Vleugels, Robert Wade, Luca Zampetti

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

—consequently, set aside the General Court’s judgment of 13 April 2018 in Case T-119/17;

—grant the form of order sought by the EEAS at first instance;

—order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs and expenses incurred in the various proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the General Court’s interpretation of Article 1 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations. According to the General Court, that provision imposes an obligation to adopt general implementing provisions (GIPs) in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations which applies to the whole of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, and in particular Article 10 thereof (paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment under appeal). The legislature, however, expressly formulated, in Annex X, an obligation to adopt GIPs only in Article 3. By contrast, in other provisions, such as the second paragraph of Article 2, Article 5(2), the first paragraph of Article 8, and Articles 10 and 21, that legislature has provided only for ‘conditions’ or ‘implementing rules’ adopted by the appointing authority.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the General Court’s interpretation of Article 10 of Annex X, in so far as it constitutes a provision lacking clarity and precision to such an extent that it lends itself to arbitrary application making the adoption of GIPs necessary (paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment under appeal). The appellant takes the view that Article 10 of Annex X provides a sufficiently detailed legal framework, placing precise limits on the appointing authority’s discretionary power.

—