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-600/22: Action brought on 26 September 2022 — ST v Frontex

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0600

62022TN0600

September 26, 2022
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

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/53

(Case T-600/22)

(2022/C 424/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ST (represented by: F. Gatta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

declare that, after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 265 TFEU, Frontex unlawfully failed to act, by refraining from taking the decision to withdraw the financing of all or part of its activities in the Aegean Sea region, to suspend those activities or to terminate them in whole or in part, in accordance with Article 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896 (1), or by not providing duly justified grounds for failing to implement the relevant measure within the meaning of Article 46(6) of that regulation, and, further, that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s preliminary request.

in the alternative, annul the decision of 27 July 2022 of Frontex, refusing to act upon the invitation to act in accordance with Article 46(4).

order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that, after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 265 TFEU, it has unlawfully failed to act, by refraining from taking the decision to withdraw the financing of all or part of its activities in the Aegean Sea Region, to suspend those activities or to terminate them in whole or in part, in accordance with Article 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896, or by not providing duly justified grounds for failing to implement the relevant measure within the meaning of Article 46(6) of that regulation.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that, in the alternative, should the Court consider that Frontex’s reply on the preliminary request pursuant to Article 265 TFEU constitutes a definition of position bringing the failure to act to an end, then its refusal to act in accordance with the applicant’s invitation to act forms the basis of an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

*

Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ 2019 L 295, p. 1).

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