Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62015TN0027

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

OJ C 118, 13.4.2015, p. 32–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.4.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/32

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

(Case T-27/15 P)

(2015/C 118/41)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Appellant: 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.
Top