Appeal brought on 14 February 2013 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2012 in Joined Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10, Z v Court of Justice

(Case T-88/13 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

declare the appeal admissible ;

declare the appeal well-founded;

accordingly set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 in Joined Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10 Z v Court of Justice of the European Union;

rule in accordance with the applications initiating proceedings in Cases F-88/09 and F-48/10;

order the opposing party to pay the costs of both instances;

reserve to the appellant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eleven grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal, alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of the Third Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal.

Second ground of appeal, alleging the absence of an effective remedy, as the Civil Service Tribunal is restricting the appellant’s action against the institutions.

Third ground of appeal, alleging the lack of competence on the part of Judge Rofes i Pujol to rule on the application for the recusal of Judge Van Raepenbusch.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to a fair hearing since the appellant did not have the possibility of appealing against the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the application for the recusal of a judge.

Fifth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to proof and of the obligation to establish the substantive truth of the reasons of the Appointing Authority which gave rise to the reassignment decision and the disciplinary decision.

Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal held that the reassignment decision had been adopted solely in the interest of the service within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Seventh ground of appeal, alleging an error of law inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal held that the posts are equivalent for the purposes of Article 7 of those Staff Regulations.

Eighth ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing.

Ninth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal declared inadmissible the claim for compensation of the damage arising from the publication of the reassignment decision within the institution, even though the appellant was not required to bring pre-litigation administrative proceedings in order to assert her claim for compensation.

Tenth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal held that the Complaints Committee was competent to take a decision on the appellant’s complaint.

Eleventh ground of appeal, alleging an error of law as the Civil Service Tribunal did not hold that the respondent had infringed Articles 1 to 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, the rights of the defence and the rule that the parties should be heard during the disciplinary proceedings.