24.9.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/24

—

(Case T-317/11)

2011/C 282/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ioannis Vakalis (Luvinate, Italy) (represented by S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

—Annul the contested judgment;

—Uphold the claims submitted at first instance, except that correctly held to be inadmissible by the Tribunal;

—Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 April 2011, delivered in Case F-38/10 Vakalis v Commission.

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

1.First plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the reasoning of the Civil Service Tribunal in that no conclusions are drawn from its findings, since it found that it is for the Commission to take account of exchange rate movements. The Commission does not take that question into account. The contested judgment is therefore vitiated by inconsistent reasoning.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal misconstrued the question put to it. It is apparent from the contested judgment that the Tribunal understood that the applicant asked it whether the difference in treatment of officials subject to the general implementing provisions in Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations (‘the GIPs’) of 1969 and those subject to those of 2004 was unlawful, while the question asked of the Tribunal was whether ‘the new GIPs are discriminatory in that they treat different factual situations identically’. In that regard, the applicant submits that the Tribunal was incorrect to reject the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a substitution of grounds by the Tribunal. The applicant submits, firstly, that the budgetary grounds for the GIPs emerged only at the hearing and, secondly, that that ground is different from that given to the applicant in the rejection of his claim (a ground which the Tribunal, moreover, accepted was inadequate). In accordance with the case-law, it is not for the Tribunal to remedy any lack of grounds or to supplement the Commission’s grounds by adding to them or by substituting for them elements which are not apparent from the contested decision itself.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, since the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the ground relating to the principle of equal treatment since the applicant failed to show that there was an unjustified difference in treatment. The applicant demonstrated that the difference in treatment at issue was not justified by the introduction of the Euro, the original ground for rejection of the claim.

—