Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62009CN0068

    Case C-68/09 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2009 by Georgios Karatzoglou against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2008 in Case T-471/04 Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

    OJ C 82, 4.4.2009, p. 21–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.4.2009   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 82/21

    Appeal brought on 16 February 2009 by Georgios Karatzoglou against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2008 in Case T-471/04 Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

    (Case C-68/09 P)

    (2009/C 82/38)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellant: Georgios Karatzoglou (represented by: S. A. Pappas, dikigoros)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

    Form of order sought

    The appellant claims that the Court should:

    —

    set aside the appealed decision;

    —

    Cancel the contested decision of the appointing authority;

    —

    Order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The appellant submits that in holding that dismissals of temporary staff do not require reasoning the Court of First Instance disregarded recent case law of the Court of Justice, infringed international law and infringed art. 253 of the EC Treaty, which imposes a general obligation to give reasons.

    The appellant also submits that the CFI was wrong in declaring that he had not presented evidence capable of establishing the existence of a misuse of powers. He also contests the finding of the CFI that there was no breach of the principle of sound administration.

    Top