Appeal brought on 16 February 2012 by Guido Strack against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 December 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV Strack v Commission

(Case T-65/12 P)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

set aside in its entirety the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV;

order the defendant, pursuant to the form of order applied for under paragraph 1 of Section A.4 of his written submission of 21 February 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV, the reasoning being stated in paragraphs 78 to 85 of that written submission, to pay damages to the applicant of at least EUR 2 500 on account of the excessive duration of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 6 ECHR;

order the Commission to bear the entire costs of the present appeal proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds.

1.    First ground, alleging infringement of the right of access to his lawful judge, Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) and Article 4(4) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The appellant argues in this connection that the case was first assigned to another chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal and that there was no legal basis for the second assignment undertaken thereafter.

2.    Second ground, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal

The appellant argues in this connection that no separate referral order was possible with regard to the form of order he sought in the main proceedings not in the application but only in a later written submission because it was not independent or separable.

3.    Third ground, alleging infringement of Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal

The appellant also claims that the legal dispute derives from his employment relationship, meaning that according to Article 1 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction.

4.    Fourth ground, alleging infringement of Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter

The appellant claims finally that by its method of proceeding the Civil Service Tribunal infringed his right to be heard and the principle of adversary proceedings and treated him unfairly.

____________