Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by Erika Lenz against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2010 in Case F-80/09 Lenz v Commission

(Case T-78/11 P)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Erika Lenz (Osnabruck, Germany) (represented by V. Lenz and J. Römer. lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

Set aside in full the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 December 2010 in Case F-80/09;

Uphold in full the forms of order sought at first instance;

Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law: misrepresentation of the facts in paragraph 29 of the judgment appealed against and infringement of the Rules of Procedure

The appellant criticises the Civil Service Tribunal for having described the 'Reasoning' of the Commission in the contested decision as such and for having accepted it, although it was not available in German and was therefore expressly not acknowledged by the appellant. The Civil Service Tribunal thereby infringed both Article 29 of its Rules of Procedure and Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1952-1958, p. 59). According to the appellant, paragraph 29 of the judgment appealed against contains not only a procedural error but also a misrepresentation of the facts.

2.    Second plea in law: misrepresentation of the profession of natural health professional ('Heilpraktiker') in Germany

It is claimed that the Civil Service Tribunal's description of the medical therapeutic profession of natural health professional in Germany was factually incorrect.

3.    Third plea in law: misrepresentation of the facts concerning the summoning of a witness

The appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal misrepresented the facts with regard to the summoning of a witness. The Civil Service Tribunal, in paragraphs 20 and 45 of the judgment appealed against, incorrectly stated that what was at issue in the written submissions was the reimbursement of the costs of the witness concerned. According to the appellant what was at issue was in fact the proof of events during the period when the witness was employed by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the institutions of the European Union.

4.    Fourth plea in law: facts missing from the judgment

The appellant also complains that certain statements by the parties in the oral hearing were not restated by the Civil Service Tribunal in the judgment appealed against and therefore also could not be assessed.

____________