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-103/23: Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Stan v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0103

62023TN0103

February 23, 2023
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/63

(Case T-103/23)

(2023/C 155/80)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Victor-Constantin Stan (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Şandru, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the Permanent Chamber of 9 December 2022, in criminal case No 1.000026/2022 opened by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the decision of the Permanent Chamber’ or ‘the contested decision’) and subsequent acts, as unlawful and unfounded, by reason of the arguments put forward in the present action, and if necessary declare inapplicable the provisions of the internal rules of procedure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office which conflict with Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits, in essence, that the decision of the Permanent Chamber No 4, being challenged, was issued in breach of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), which, as regards the composition of the Permanent Chamber, requires there to be two permanent Members in addition to the Chair. The contested decision was issued by a Permanent Chamber comprising only one permanent Member in addition to the Chair and to the supervising European Prosecutor who participated in the decision’s adoption.

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