- 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-457/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 June 2014 by Thierry Rouffaud against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 April 2014 in Case F-59/13, Rouffaud v EEAS
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0457
62014TN0457
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
11.8.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 261/44
—
(Case T-457/14 P)
2014/C 261/70
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Thierry Rouffaud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. de Abreu Caldas, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)
Form of order sought by the appellant
—Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 in Case F-59/13 Rouffaud v European External Action Service;
—Order the EEAS to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.
1.First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) failed to draw the attention of the parties to the question of the admissibility of the application until just before the final act of long proceedings, making it impossible for the applicant to prepare adequate arguments.
2.Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law as regards the application of the rule on consistency, in so far as the subject-matter and the cause are perfectly identical as between the claim and the action for annulment.
3.Third ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the evidence and of the facts, in so far as the CST included in its judgment only a limited part of the applicant’s pleadings, which does not reflect the true situation after the closure of the written procedure.
—