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 T-684/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2015 by Roderich Weissenfels against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 September 2015 in Case F-92/14, Weissenfels v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0684

62015TN0684

November 27, 2015
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 59/26

(Case T-684/15 P)

(2016/C 059/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Roderich Weissenfels (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment;

grant the form of order sought at first instance and

consequently order the Parliament to pay the damages for non-material harm sought and to pay the costs of proceedings at both instances, including those of the pre-litigation procedure and all necessary expenses and disbursements of the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 September 2015 in Weissenfels v Parliament (F-92/14, ECR-SC, EU:F:2015:110).

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law: Breach of the requirement of impartiality (the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

The appellant asserts that both the judicial proceedings which led to the judgment under appeal and the judgment itself are consistently characterised by recurrent breaches of the requirement of impartiality. Those breaches are obvious in both subsidiary proceedings and in breaches of law which are relevant for the decision.

2.Second plea in law: Denial of justice, infringement of the principles of logic and distortion of the facts with regard to the refusal to have the fulfilment of criminal offences examined

3.Third plea in law: Infringement of the principles of logic, distortion of the facts and manifestly incorrect assessment in respect of the disputed slanderous claim contained in the e-mail of 10 April 2002

4.Fourth plea in law: Distortion of the facts and of the subject-matter of the proceedings, infringement of the principles of logic, disregard for the law and breach of law with regard to the passing on of the appellant’s personal data

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