EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-642/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0642

62011TN0642

December 8, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

18.2.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/30

(Case T-642/11 P)

2012/C 49/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische, and M. Velardo, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

Set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-93/05 Mische v Parliament and, to the extent possible based on the facts before the Court deliver judgment, and:

Annul the Parliament’s decision of 4 October 2004 in so far as it determines the appellant’s grading;

Order the Parliament to make good any damage caused (including damages to his career, legal and regular pay, immaterial damages, with default interest etc.);

Order the Parliament to pay the cost of these proceedings and those before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in declaring the action inadmissible for having been lodged out of time.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in ruling that the action is inadmissible because it would not have been liable to procure any advantage to the appellant, and thus he did not have an interest in bringing the action.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to rule on the pleas raised on the merits of the application, in particular the infringement of Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations (1).

Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia