Appeal brought on 20 August 2013 by the Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2013 in Joined Cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12, BU v EMA

(Case T-444/13 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabloński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)Other party to the proceedings: BU (London, United Kingdom)Form of order sought by the appellantThe appellant claims that the Court should:annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12 in so far as it annuls the decis

d N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and

A. Duron, lawyers)Other party to the

amely dismiss the action as wholly unfoundedorder the defendant to pay the costs of the

present proceedings and those which took place before the Civil Service Tribunal.Pleas in law and main argumentsIn support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.First plea in law, alleging infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the prohibition on

ruling ultra vires in that it decided that it has the power to ascertain whether the grounds given by the adminis

tration for refusing to renew a contract are not such as to call into question the criteria and conditions which have been lai

d down by the legislature in the

Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking to ens

ure that contractual staff are able to benefit, over time, from a certain continuity of employment (concerning paragraphs 57 to 62 of the judgment under appeal). The EMA claims that there is no legal basis for the power claimed by the Civil Service Tribunal.Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when interpreting the first subparagraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEO), since the Civil Service Tribunal held that it is for the competent authority to examine whether there exists a position to which the temporary agent whose contract has terminated could be usefully appointed or reappointed. Th

ird plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in that it distorts the concept of the interests of the service, in so far as the interpretation given by the Civil Service Tribunal creates a presumption according to which the interested person’s employment is continued unless the competent authority is able to establish that there exists no position to which the temporary agent whose contract has terminat

ed could be usefully appointed or reappointed. Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law with regard to the order that the EMA pay the costs in Case F-51/12, which was dismissed as inadmissible.