26.10.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/51

—

(Case T-520/15 P)

(2015/C 354/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Filip Mikulik (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Filip Mikulik v Council of the European Union and itself give judgment in the matter;

—in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

—order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eight pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and of overarching principles of law such as the principle of good administration and principle of equal treatment, in so far as the General instructions on the preparation of staff reports, concerning the general implementing provisions on reports, are not applicable by analogy to the procedure for appraising the performance of a probationary official at the time of his establishment.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) considered that the third company whose consultant was involved in the process of evaluating the official had not seen his position consolidate within the Council.

3.Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of the case-law concerning Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the duty of care, as the CST found that the probationary period and the appraisal had taken place under normal conditions, although the applicant had been supervised and evaluated by external consultants and did not have the benefit of mentoring.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the Council did not apply in the present case the rules concerning mentoring set out in the internal guidelines.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the CST considered that mentoring and micromanagement were not two separate concepts on the basis of the internal guidelines.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, as the CST found that the failure to send the first opinion to the line management was not contrary to that article.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the CST did not check if the opinion of the Reports Committee had been communicated to the line management on time.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, as the CST found that it could not assume the role of the institution in the appraisal of the applicant’s performance.

—