Appeal brought on 10 February 2010 by Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission

(Case T-62/10 P)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt (Merzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Paulmann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the contested judgment;

give judgment itself and, as claimed by the appellant at first instance, annul the decision of the selection board of Competition EPSO/AST/27/06 of 25 July 2007 not to allow the appellant to be admitted to the practical and oral tests of that competition which was, in the meantime, confirmed by the decision of 13 December 2007 on her complaint;

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in connection with both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission, rejecting the appellant's application.

The appellant bases her appeal on the ground that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when considering the conditions for admission to Open Competition EPSO/AST/27/06. In that regard, it is alleged inter alia that the Civil Service Tribunal, when deciding whether the appellant possessed a diploma within the meaning of the notice of competition in respect of the competition in question, essentially applied the French version of Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Further, according to the appellant, the arguments with which the Civil Service Tribunal sought to invalidate the appellant's submissions are vitiated by a number of errors of law. In that regard, it is submitted inter alia that findings were made whose unlawfulness is apparent from the case-file, and also the clear sense of the evidence submitted was distorted.

The appellant further claims that the indirect discrimination on grounds of age, of which she complains and which was found to have existed, was held to be justified on grounds which were insufficient and false.

____________