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 62015TN0297

Case T-297/15 P: Appeal brought on 8 June 2015 by Ángel Coedo Suárez against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-38/14, Coedo Suárez v Council

OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 44–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/44

Appeal brought on 8 June 2015 by Ángel Coedo Suárez against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 March 2015 in Case F-38/14, Coedo Suárez v Council

(Case T-297/15 P)

(2015/C 245/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the present appeal admissible;

—

set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 in Coedo Suárez v Council (F-38/14, EU:F:2015:25);

—

grant the application for annulment made by the appellant at first instance;

—

order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of 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 a distortion of the facts and evidence, and an error of law, in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the appointing authority had not committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the appellant’s ill health did not constitute an extenuating circumstance.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.
Top