Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Patrizia De Luca against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV, De Luca v Commission

(Case T-200/13 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Patrizia De Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2013 in Case F-20/06 RENV De Luca v Commission;

Giving judgment itself,

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2005 to appoint the appellant as an administrator, in so far as it sets her classification at grade A*9 step 2;

Order the Commission to pay the costs in respect of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal alleging the following errors of law:

the Civil Service Tribunal interpreted the judgment of 14 December 2011 in Case T-563/10 P De Luca v Commission as restricting the examination of the legality of the contested decision at first instance solely to the effects of the application by analogy of the rules on recruitment without taking into account the pre-eminence of the applicable provisions concerning normal career progression;

the Civil Service Tribunal held that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union could lawfully apply by analogy, but stated that that did not constitute an advantage for the appellant in terms of career and that the limited advantage in terms of remuneration would ultimately disappear;

the Civil Service Tribunal did not carry out an examination of the legality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of its application by analogy to the appellant taking into account the principle of equal treatment and of the right to reasonable career prospects;

it is for the Civil Service Tribunal to ascertain, and not for the appellant to establish, the manifestly inappropriate nature of the application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

the Civil Service Tribunal rejected at the outset, without an in-depth examination, the appellant's argument alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment resulting from the fact that the eligibility of officials for promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations is maintained notwithstanding the amendments to the Staff Regulations which have taken place, although this does not, on account of the application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, apply to the appellant.

____________