- 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
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber) 10 November 2011.#Denise Couyoufa v European Commission.#Civil service – Officials – European Commission representations in the Member States – 2011 rotation procedure – Application for exemption from rotation – Admissibility – Measure amounting to a decision – Delay.#Case F‑110/10.
ECLI:EU:F:2011:182
62010FJ0110
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
Reports of Cases
Case F-110/10
(Civil service — Officials — European Commission representations in the Member States — 2011 rotation procedure — Application for exemption from rotation — Admissibility — Measure amounting to a decision — Delay)
Application:brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Couyoufa essentially seeks annulment of the decision of 26 February 2010 rejecting her application for exemption from the rotation applicable for officials assigned to the Commission’s representations in the Member States, and annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 27 July 2010 rejecting her complaint against the decision of 26 February 2010.
Held: The action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay half of the costs incurred by the applicant in addition to its own costs. The applicant is ordered to pay half of her own costs.
Summary
3. Officials — Actions — Plea of illegality — Incidental nature — Main action inadmissible — Plea inadmissible (Art. 277 TFEU)
EN ECLI:EU:F:2011:182
SUMMARY – CASE F-110/10 COUYOUFA v COMMISSION
such notification. That time limit was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain, so that it is a matter of public policy and is not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court.
(see para. 22)
See:
21 June 2010, T-284/09 P Meister v OHIM, para. 25, and the case-law cited therein
28 April 2009, F-72/06 Verheyden v Commission, para. 39, and the case-law cited therein
(see para. 27)
See:
15 May 1985, 127/84 Esly v Commission, para. 10
7 June 1991, T-14/91 Weyrich v Commission, para. 33
20 September 2007, F-111/06 Giannopoulos v Council, para. 28; 25 March 2010, F-102/08 Marcuccio v Commission, para. 36
3. Article 277 TFEU does not create an entitlement to take action independently and may be relied on only as an incidental plea in an admissible action, rather than constituting the subject of an action. A plea of illegality raised in the course of an inadmissible action is thus inadmissible.
(see para. 32)
See:
23 April 2008, F-103/05 Pickering v Commission, para. 94; 23 April 2008, F-112/05 Bain and Others v Commission, para. 96, and the case-law cited therein; 4 June 2009, F-134/07 and F-8/08 Adjemian and Others v Commission, para. 38
ECLI:EU:F:2011:182