Appeal brought on 21 June 2018 by H against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2018 in Case T-271/10 RENV: H v Council of the European Union
(Case C-413/18 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocatessa)
Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment of 11 April 2018 in case T-271/10 RENV, H v Council of the European Union, insofar as it rejects the appellant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Head of personnel of the European Union Police Mission, by which the appellant was redeployed to the post of “Criminal Justice Adviser-Prosecutor” in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, in the alternative, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission referred to in Article 6 of Council decision 2009/906/CFSP1 of 8 December 2009 on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and insofar as it rejects the claim for damages due to the illegality of the above-mentioned decisions;
give a decision on the case, and, if necessary, refer the case back to the General Court;
order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs in case C-455/14 P as well as in these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant claims an infringement of Article 216 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, insofar as the judgment under appeal was issued by a Chamber composed partially of the same judges who issued the order overturned by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Regarding the powers of the Head of Mission to adopt decisions relating to the redeployment of the staff and the role of the Member State of origin in the framework of the transfer of the seconded staff, the appellant claims an infringement of Article 61, paragraph II, of the Statute of the Court of Justice insofar as the judge at first instance did not comply with the ruling in the case referred back by the European Court of Justice.
Distortion of evidence
Infringement of the right of defence and equal treatment, insofar as the appellant was not heard with regard to some documents and written observations submitted by the Council during the procedure at first instance.
Infringement of Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure insofar as it is stated that the appellant will bear the costs in case C-455/14 P, in which she succeeded.
____________
1 OJ 2009, L 322, p. 22.