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 C-385/24 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2024 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2024 in Case T-623/18, EO v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0385

62024CN0385

May 30, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C series

C/2024/4847

12.8.2024

(Case C-385/24 P)

(C/2024/4847)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, D. Milanowska, G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: EO

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal and

order the Applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits three grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court erred in the interpretation of the effects of a previous judgment annulling a notice of competition on the legality of the contested decision of the Selection Board, by holding that to the annulment of the notice should follow as an automatic consequence the annulment of the contested decision.

Second, the General Court distorted the facts concerning the linguistic skills of the Applicant in first instance by omitting to consider facts available to it and that unequivocally showed that there could be no close connection between the illegality of the notice of competition and that of the contested decision of the Selection Board.

Third, the General Court infringed the obligation to motivate its own judgments since, on the one hand, it did not explain why it was unnecessary to decide on the admissibility of the plea of illegality of the notice of competition raised by the Applicant in first instance and, on the other, when turning to the consequences of the annulment of the contested decision, it contradicted its previous assessment regarding the automatic annulment of that decision.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4847/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *

Language of the case: English.

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