- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-43/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2008 — Neophytou v Commission (Appeals — Staff cases — Open competition — Rejection of the appellant's candidature — Composition of the selection board for the oral tests — Principle of equal treatment — New pleas in law — Error of law — Appeal in part unfounded and in part founded — Referral back to the Civil Service Tribunal)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TA0043
62007TA0043
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
Official Journal of the European Union
(Case T-43/07 P) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Appeals - Staff cases - Open competition - Rejection of the appellant's candidature - Composition of the selection board for the oral tests - Principle of equal treatment - New pleas in law - Error of law - Appeal in part unfounded and in part founded - Referral back to the Civil Service Tribunal)
(2008/C 301/52)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Neophytos Neophytou (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)
Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 in Case F-22/05 Neophytou v Commission [2006] ECR-SC II-A-1-617 seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2006 in Case F-22/05 Neophytou v Commission to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the submissions, with the exception of the last, put forward by Mr Neophytos Neophytou at the hearing at first instance and summarised in paragraph 27 of that judgment, were inadmissible;
2.Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
3.Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
4.Orders that the costs be reserved.
* * *
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.