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-683/14 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2014 by Rhys Morgan against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 July 2014 in Case F-26/13, Morgan v OHIM

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0683

62014TN0683

September 16, 2014
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 431/33

(Case T-683/14)

(2014/C 431/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Rhys Morgan (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 July 2014 in Case F-26/13;

annul the Appraisal Report issued to the appellant in respect of the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011;

order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount EUR 500 — to the appellant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the aforesaid Appraisal Report;

order OHIM to pay the costs as regards the proceedings in the Civil Service Tribunal and in the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to recognize that a general assessment must be based on the official’s performance during the appraisal period as a whole.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to recognize the gravity of the procedural violations committed by OHIM.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed an error when appreciating the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed errors when appreciating the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to evaluate properly, or even to examine, the evidence in relation to the plea of misuse of powers.

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