Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2018:1049

DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE (Reviewing Chamber)

20 December 2018 (*)

(Review)

In Case C‑740/18 RX,

PROPOSAL for review made by the First Advocate General, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on 23 November 2018,

THE COURT (Reviewing Chamber),

composed of A. Prechal, President of the Chamber, F. Biltgen (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, C.G. Fernlund and L.S. Rossi, Judges,

makes the following

Decision

1        The proposal for review made by the First Advocate General concerns the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 25 October 2018, FN and Others v CEPOL (T‑334/16 P, EU:T:2018:723). By that judgment, the General Court set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 11 April 2016, FN and Others v CEPOL (F‑41/15 DISS II, EU:F:2016:70), by which the Civil Service Tribunal dismissed the applicants’ action for, inter alia, (i) annulment of Decision No 17/2014/DIR of the Director of the European Police College (CEPOL) of 23 May 2014 concerning the relocation of CEPOL to Budapest (Hungary), (ii) annulment of the various decisions of CEPOL of 28 November 2014 rejecting their complaints, lodged individually between 8 and 21 August 2014, against the first decision, and (iii) and an order for damages from CEPOL for the material and non-material damage they allegedly suffered.

2        The General Court set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal on the ground that it had committed an error of law by failing to declare inadmissible the claims for annulment made by the applicants at first instance. Ruling on the action at first instance, the General Court declared that the claims for annulment made before the Civil Service Tribunal were inadmissible and dismissed the appeal for the remainder.

3        It follows from Article 256(2) TFEU that decisions given by the General Court on appeal against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where there is a serious risk that the unity or consistency of EU law may be affected.

4        Pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, where the First Advocate General considers that there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of EU law being affected, he may propose that the Court of Justice review the decision of the General Court.

5        It is apparent in that regard from Article 193(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that, if such proposal for review is brought before the Reviewing Chamber of the Court of Justice, that Chamber is to decide whether the decision of the General Court is to be reviewed. If so, the decision to review the decision of the General Court is to indicate only the questions which are to be reviewed.

6        In the present case, the examination of the judgment of 25 October 2018, FN and Others v CEPOL (T‑334/16 P, EU:T:2018:723), has not indicated that there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of EU law being affected and, consequently, it is not necessary to review that judgment.

On those grounds, Court of Justice (Reviewing Chamber) decides:

It is not necessary to review the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 25 October 2018, FN and Others v CEPOL (T334/16 P, EU:T:2018:723).

Luxembourg, 20 December 2018.

A. Calot Escobar

 

A. Prechal

Registrar

 

President of the Reviewing Chamber


*      Language of the case: English.