- 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-670/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Commission v D’Agostino (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Decision not to renew the contract — Duty of care — Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the file)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TA0670
62013TA0670
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
18.1.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 16/28
(Case T-670/13 P) (1)
((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Decision not to renew the contract - Duty of care - Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the file))
(2016/C 016/34)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, Agents)
Other party to the proceedings: Luigi D’Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:155), seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12) in so far the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly applied the duty of care;
2.Dismisses the remainder of the main appeal;
3.Sets aside the judgment in D’Agostino v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to adjudicate on the first part of the second ground of appeal and distorted it;
4.Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder;
5.Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
6.Reserves the costs.
(1) OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.