Appeal brought on 27 April 2009 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08, Stols v Council

(Case T-175/09 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and G. Kimberley, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands)

Form of order sought by the appellant

Set aside the judgment of the CST of 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08 Willem Stols v Council,

Dismiss the action of 21 May 2008 by which Mr Stols had sought annulment of the decision of 16 July 2007 by which the Council refused to include him on the list of officials promoted to grade AST 11 for the 2007 promotion exercise, together with the decision of 5 February 2008 by which the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council had rejected, as the appointing authority, Mr Stols' complaint submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations,

Order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the Council of the European Union seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08 Stols v Council, by which the CST annulled the Council decisions refusing to promote Mr Stols to grade AST 11 in the context of the 2007 promotion exercise.

In support of its appeal, the Council relies on two grounds of appeal alleging:

- an error of law, in so far as the CST exceeded the limits set by the case-law to the review by the Community judicature of the wide discretion enjoyed by the appointing authority for the purposes of the comparative consideration of the merits of officials who are candidatesfor promotion;

- an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, as the judgment under appeal is marred by numerous omissions and imprecisions which render incomprehensible the basis on which the CST actually concluded that there was a manifest error on the part of the Council difficult to understand.

____________