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-26/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12, Hristov v Commission and EMA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0026

62015TN0026

January 20, 2015
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/32

(Case T-26/15 P)

(2015/C 118/40)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova)

Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov, European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12 Hristov v Commission and EMA,

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, for a ruling on the other pleas in support of the appeal,

reserve the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law:

the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by attributing to the principle of good administration a scope which it does not have;

in the alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to determine, before making the annulment, whether the failure to observe the principle of good administration could have affected the contents of the contested decision;

in the further alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal, in any event, infringed EU law by failing to balance the respective interests and failing to limit the effects of its judgments.

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