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-561/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04 Potamianos v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0561

62008CN0561

January 1, 2008
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

21.2.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/37

(Case C-561/08 P)

(2009/C 44/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Gerasimos Potamianos

Form of order sought

Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04;

Declare Mr Potamianos's action inadmissible;

Rule that each of the parties is to bear their own costs as regards both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, the Commission is challenging the categorisation by the Court of First Instance of the notification sent to the respondent informing him of the non-renewal of his contract of employment as a temporary servant. The Court of First Instance interpreted that notification as a separate decision of the appointing authority. It is, however, clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice and, in particular, Case C-417/05 P Fernández Gómez, that such a notification has merely informative value, with only the terms of the contract stating that the contract will not be renewed upon expiry amounting to an act adversely affecting a party. As that contract was not challenged within the periods prescribed by the Staff Regulations, the Court of First Instance should have dismissed the action as inadmissible.

In disregarding that case-law, the Court of First Instance therefore created a situation of legal uncertainty for the Civil Service Tribunal and for the Commission and other institutions which have concluded contracts similar to that at issue in the present case.

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