Appeal brought on 5 December 2012 by Moises Bermejo Garde against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2012 in Case F-41/10, Bermejo Garde v EESC

(Case T-530/12 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 25 September 2012 in Case F-41/10;

consequently, uphold the appellant's form of order sought at first instance and thus

annul Decision No 88/10 A of 3 March 2010 of the President of the EESC rejecting the application brought by the appellant on 7 December 2009 and deciding to reassign him;

annul the addition to Decision No 88/10 of 25 March 2010;

annul Decision No 133/10 A of 24 March 2010 terminating the appellant's functions as head of unit of the legal service with immediate effect and reassigning him in his capacity as head of unit, together with his post, to another service from 6 April 2010;

annul Decision No 184/10 A of 13 April 2010 of the President of the EESC reassigning the applicant to the Directorate for Logistics, which took effect on 6 April 2010;

order the respondent to pay EUR 17 5000 in damages;

order the respondent to pay all the costs;

order the respondent to pay all of the costs incurred at both instances.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his action, the appellant raises five grounds of appeal. In the appellant's view, the Civil Service Tribunal considered that he had suffered harm as a result of the communication of information to his hierarchy, in so far as he was deprived of his functions of head of the legal service, but that that harm did result from an infringement of Articles 12A and 22A of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

1.    First ground of appeal: infringement of the notion of act adversely affecting an official and distortion of the file (concerning, essentially, paragraphs 44 to 64 of the judgment under appeal).

2.    Second ground of appeal: infringement of the principle of respect of the rights of the defence and an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (concerning paragraphs 114 to 118 of the judgment under appeal).

3.    Third ground of appeal: infringement of Articles 12A, 22A and 86 of the Staff Regulation, and an infringement of the duty to state reasons and distortion of the file (concerning, essentially, paragraphs 133 et seq. of the judgment under appeal).

4.    Fourth ground of appeal: infringement of Article 86 of the Staff Regulations, of Annex IX thereto, of the general implementing provisions of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of the duty to respect the rights of the defence, distortion of the file, and an infringement of the duty to state reasons (concerning, essentially, paragraphs 75 to 78 of the judgment under appeal).

5.    Fifth ground of appeal: infringement of the rules relating to the competence of the institution which adopted the act and an infringement of Article 22A of the Staff Regulations and of Article 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the EESC (concerning paragraphs 70 and 71 of the judgment under appeal).

____________