Appeal brought on 19 August 2013 by the Comité économique et social européen (CESE) against the judgment of 26 June 2013 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-21/12 Achab v CESE

(Case T-430/13 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Comité économique et social européen (CESE) (represented by: M. Arsène, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Mohammed Achab (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant requests the General Court to:

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-21/12 in so far as it annuls the CESE's decision of 9 June 2011 concerning the repayment of the expatriation allowance paid to Mr Achab after 1 July 2010 and orders the CESE to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the applicant at first instance;

uphold the order sought by the appellant on appeal, that is to say dismiss the action as wholly unfounded;

order the respondent in the appeal to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds:

First ground, alleging errors of law in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal erred in holding that the conditions for the repayment of the amount received in error were not fulfilled.

Second ground, alleging an error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal contributes to the unjust enrichment of the applicant at first instance.

Third ground, alleging a manifest error of assessment, the Civil Service Tribunal having wrongly considered that the CESE had never communicated with its staff in order to draw their attention to the consequences of naturalisation.

Fourth ground, alleging an error of law owing to the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal breached the principle according to which financial provisions are to be applied strictly and the principle that provisions which lay down exceptions must be interpreted in a limited and restrictive way.

Fifth ground, alleging an error of law with regard to the allocation of expenses.