- 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-6/11 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 28 October 2010 in Case F-9/09 Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0006
62011TN0006
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 72/24
—
(Case T-6/11 P)
2011/C 72/40
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: Isabel Vicente Carbajosa (Brussels, Belgium), Niina Lehtinen (Brussels) and Myriam Menchen (Brussels)
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 October 2010 in Case F-9/09 Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission;
—refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal so that it may examine the grounds raised by the appellant seeking to have the judgment set aside;
—reserve the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant puts forward two grounds in support of the appeal.
1.First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal upheld a plea which was not raised in the case at issue, or of the Tribunal's own motion, but in another case.
2.Second ground of appeal, alleging in the alternative infringement of Articles 1, 5 and 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union and of decisions creating the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), as well as infringement of the obligation to state reasons inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal wrongly held that EPSO did not have the power to admit the persons concerned onto the list of candidates invited to submit a full application after the pre-selection phase.
—