27.5.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/16

—

(Case C-131/19 P)

(2019/C 182/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, T. S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: CX

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 in Case T-743/16 RENV, CX v Commission, in so far as it annulled the disciplinary decision of removal from post;

—refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the other pleas in law of the action;

—reserve the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal: misapplication of Articles 4 and 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials in incorrectly interpreting the scope of the right to appear in person.

The arguments in support of the first ground of appeal are divided into several parts.

In the first part, the Commission submits that the judgment failed to have regard to the legal criteria applicable for the purpose of assessing the official’s inability to appear in person, the duty to state reasons and the rules governing burden of proof.

In the second part, the Commission submits that the judgment incorrectly applied the concept of a body of consistent evidence in order to establish that the official was unable to appear at the hearings and that the General Court carried out an incomplete examination of the relevant evidence.

In the third part, the Commission maintains that the judgment distorted the clear sense of two pieces of evidence.

Second ground of appeal: misapplication of Articles 4 and 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials in incorrectly interpreting the scope of the right to be heard in writing or through a representative.

The arguments in support of the second ground of appeal are divided into two parts.

The first part relates to the failure to have regard to the legal criteria applicable for the purpose of assessing the official’s inability to submit his comments in writing or through a representative, the failure to have regard to the duty to state reasons, the failure to have regard to the rules governing burden of proof as regards the official’s inability to defend himself at the hearings and the incorrect application of the concept of a body of consistent evidence.

The second part relates to the inconsistency of the reasons concerning the official’s inability to ensure his defence.

Third ground of appeal: failure to have regard to the duty to state reasons regarding the consequences of the infringement of the right to be heard.

The General Court failed to state reasons why the procedural irregularity flowing from the infringement of the right to be heard led to the annulment of the decision at issue.

—