This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0310
Case C-310/19 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA
Case C-310/19 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA
Case C-310/19 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA
OJ C 255, 29.7.2019, p. 17–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 15/04/2019
- Date lodged:
- 15/04/2019
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- French
- Type of procedure:
- Staff cases
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Request to review the judgment 62017TO0817
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
29.7.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 255/17 |
Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Boudewijn Schokker against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17 Schokker v EASA
(Case C-310/19 P)
(2019/C 255/25)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Boudewijn Schokker (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocats)
Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the order of 8 February 2019 in Case T-817/17, Schokker v EASA; |
|
— |
refer the case back to the General Court; and |
|
— |
reserve the costs. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The appellant claims, first, that the General Court erred in law by dismissing the action on a ground that it had raised if its own motion and erroneously categorised as ‘manifest’. When it did so, the General Court infringed Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure and the appellant’s rights of defence.
The appellant submits, second, that the General Court erred in law by concluding that a verification of the grounds for the withdrawal of the offer of employment at issue was irrelevant, as an offer of employment can, in any case, be withdrawn at any moment without being subject to any conditions.
