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-646/16 P: Appeal brought on 6 September 2016 by Erik Simpson against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2016 in Case F-142/11 RENV Simpson v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0646

62016TN0646

September 6, 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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/51

(Case T-646/16 P)

(2016/C 419/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 24 June 2016 in Case 142/11 RENV Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it rejects the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the applicant has to bear its own costs and the costs of the Council;

refer the case to the First Instance Judge, if needed; and

order the Council to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that, regarding the obligation to state grounds the CST has made an error in law, has infringed the European law, has not provided its order with the prescribed grounds and has distorted evidence.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that, regarding the principle of equal treatment and the manifest error of appraisal the appellant alleges that the CST has distorted evidence, has made an error in law, has infringed the European law and has not provided the contested order with a sufficient motivation.

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