Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by Geoffroy Alsteens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2015 in Case F-87/12 RENV Alsteens v Commission

(Case T-328/15 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-87/12 RENV Alsteens v Commission;

annul the Commission’s decision of 18 November 2011 to the extent that it fixes 31 March 2012 as the limit of the extension period for the appellant’s temporary staff contract;

order the Commission to pay a provisional sum of 1 euro by way of compensation for the damage suffered by the appellant, together with the costs of the four sets of legal proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant raises three grounds in support of his appeal.

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the adversarial principle and an error of law. The appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) (i) wrongly rejected as inadmissible, in the light of the rule of correspondence, the pleas in law based on a manifest error of assessment and the principle of sound administration, even though the Commission had never raised an objection of inadmissibility and the parties had never had the opportunity to take a position on that alleged inadmissibility, and (ii) in any event, erred in law in finding that the appellant had not complied with the rule of correspondence.

Second ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the appellant’s arguments, a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and an error of law, as the CST held that it was not necessary to give a ruling on the interpretation of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’) and that the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Alexopoulou v Commission (T-17/95, ECR — SC, EU:T:1995:176) was entirely irrelevant for the purposes of resolving the dispute.

Third ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and an error of law, as the CST held that it was necessary to receive a specific request from the appellant in order to derogate from the mechanical application of the six-year rule, thereby disregarding the fact that the contested decision was an act adversely affecting the appellant.

____________