- 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-196/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by Valéria Anna Gyarmathy against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 March 2015 in Case F-97/13, Gyarmathy/FRA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0196
62015TN0196
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
C 86/28
—
(Case T-196/15 P)
(2017/C 086/37)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: A. Cech, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside in full the contested judgment and uphold in its entirety the form of order sought at first instance;
—order the defendant to bear all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging distortion of evidence and substantive inaccuracy in the factual appraisal by the Civil Service Tribunal of the question of the violation of the terms of the vacancy notice.
2.Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Civil Service Tribunal, contrary to the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to give adequate reasons for its judgment on the questions arising from the selection process.
3.Third plea in law, alleging failure by the Civil Service Tribunal to adopt further procedural measures which would have enabled the applicant to substantiate her claim concerning a lack of impartiality, objectivity or independence in the selection process.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by declaring inadmissible the applicant’s plea in law at first instance relating to the filling of the post concerned, on the ground that it was not raised in the pre-litigation procedure.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by declaring inadmissible the applicant’s plea in law at first instance relating to the irregular composition of the selection committee and the breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, on the ground that it was not raised in the pre-litigation procedure and was not closely related to the pleas in the complaint (correspondence rule).
—