- 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 F-105/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2015 — ED v ENISA (Civil service — Temporary staff member — Selection procedure — Decision rejecting an application, during the pre-selection stage, following examination by a selection board — No complaint lodged within the time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting the application — Request for information — Reply from the authority authorised to conclude employment contracts not including a review of the decision rejecting the application — Complaint lodged against that reply — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014FB0105
62014FB0105
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 190/32
(Case F-105/14) (*)
((Civil service - Temporary staff member - Selection procedure - Decision rejecting an application, during the pre-selection stage, following examination by a selection board - No complaint lodged within the time-limit laid down in the Staff Regulations against the decision rejecting the application - Request for information - Reply from the authority authorised to conclude employment contracts not including a review of the decision rejecting the application - Complaint lodged against that reply - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2015/C 190/37)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ED (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)
Re:
Action for the annulment of the decision not to retain the applicant’s application for the post of ‘Legal Officer’ in response to Vacancy Notice ENISA-TA-AD-2013-05.
Operative part of the order
1.The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2.ED shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security.
(*)
Language of the case: English
OJ C 7 of 12.1.2015, p. 53.