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-251/16: Action brought on 20 May 2016 — Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0251

62016TN0251

May 20, 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

18.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/45

(Case T-251/16)

(2016/C 260/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Jelínek, staff member, assisted by G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Decision C(2016)1449 final of the European Commission of 2 March 2016 concerning an application for waiver of immunity, with the exception of Article 1(2);

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law: infringements of law and manifest errors of assessment committed by the European Commission. The contested decision does not comply with the legal requirements governing waiver of immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and is based on a manifestly erroneous reading of the documents in the case-file. Moreover, the contested decision did not correctly assess the EU’s interest and compromises the independence of the Director-General of OLAF.

2.Second plea in law: infringements of law and distortion of the decision-making process.

3.Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

4.Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation and of procedural guarantees.

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