- 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-730/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2017 — DI v EASO (Appeal — Civil service — EASO staff — Member of the contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Probationary period — Dismissal decision — Action for annulment and for damages — Dismissal of the action as manifestly inadmissible at first instance — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TA0730
62015TA0730
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
18.4.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 121/27
(Case T-730/15) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Appeal - Civil service - EASO staff - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Probationary period - Dismissal decision - Action for annulment and for damages - Dismissal of the action as manifestly inadmissible at first instance - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations))
(2017/C 121/39)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: DI (represented by: I. Vlaic and G. Iliescu, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) (represented by: W. Stevens, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)
Re:
Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015, DI v EASO (F-113/13, EU:F:2015:120), seeking to have that order set aside.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Sets aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2015, DI v EASO (F-113/13);
2.Refers the case to a chamber of the General Court other than that which ruled on the present appeal;
3.Reserves the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.