- 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-27/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Medicines Agency (EMA) 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:62015TN0027
62015TN0027
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-27/15 P)
(2015/C 118/41)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Parties
Applicant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova)
Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov, European Commission
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 four 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;
—in the final alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by holding that the unlawfulness of the Commission’s decision necessarily led to the decision adopted by the EMA being unlawful.
—