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-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0686

62016TN0686

September 23, 2016
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

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/19

(Case T-686/16 P)

(2016/C 428/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by S. Pappas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 dismissing his action;

grant the claims sought at first instance;

order the other party to the proceedings to pay all of the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

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

1.First ground of appeal, divided into two limbs, alleging infringement of Article 11(4), (5) and (6) of the decision of the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’) of 27 August 2009 establishing the staff appraisal procedure (‘decision of 27 August 2009’), interpreted in the light of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

First limb, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in failing to examine the plea, relied on at first instance by the appellant, relating to the lack of prior dialogue between the validator and the evaluator.

Second limb, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the order under appeal by failing to examine, of its own motion, the lack of prior dialogue between the validator and the evaluator.

2.Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of the decision of 27 August 2009 by failing to have regard for the difference in role between evaluator and validator as established within Frontex.

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