Appeal brought on 11 September 2015 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice
(Case T-532/15 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 applicant claims that the Court should:
declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
accordingly set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice of the European Union;
rule in accordance with the application initiating proceedings in Case F-64/13;
order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs;
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 six pleas in law.
First ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of the basic rights of defence.
Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the plea in law alleging lack of competence on the part of the Complaints Committee and of illegality of Article 4 of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 May 2004 1 was rejected in manifest breach of the principle of legality, of textual interpretation and of the hierarchy of norms of the EU legal order.
Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, with regard in particular to the limited review by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of the content of staff reports.
Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST did not rule on the application for measures of inquiry and organisation of procedure.
Fifth ground of appeal, alleging unjustified refusal to examine the validity of the criticisms expressed by the appellant and failure to take into consideration the opinions expressed by the rating committee.
Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST held that the appellant was obliged to apply to the Court under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking compensation for the delay in drawing up the staff report.
____________1 Decision of the Court of Justice of 4 May 2004 concerning the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union on the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment.