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-678/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Sergio Siragusa against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016 in Case F-124/15, Siragusa v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0678

62016TN0678

September 23, 2016
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

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/55

(Case T-678/16 P)

(2016/C 419/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Siragusa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2016, served on 14 July 2016, Siragusa v Council of the European Union (F-124/15);

Refer to the substance of the action and set aside the order under appeal;

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal, alleging an error of law.

He is of the opinion that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the classification in law of the Council’s decision validating his early retirement of 11 July 2013. In consequence, he submits that the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 November 2014 refusing his early retirement must be regarded as an adverse measure withdrawing the earlier decision accepting his early retirement and not as a mere decision confirming an implied rejection decision.

The appellant submits, finally, that since the decision of 12 November 2014 was contested within the period prescribed for that purpose, the action brought at first instance is admissible and its merits must be examined.

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