EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CN0460
Case C-460/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission
Case C-460/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission
Case C-460/18 P: Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission
OJ C 381, 22.10.2018, p. 4–4
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.10.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 381/4 |
Appeal brought on 12 July 2018 by HK against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 May 2018 in Case T-574/16 HK v Commission
(Case C-460/18 P)
(2018/C 381/05)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: HK (represented by: A. Champetier, S. Rodrigues, lawyers)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
|
— |
Declare that the appeal is admissible and well founded; |
|
— |
Annul the judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 (Case T-574/16); |
|
— |
Dispose of the case itself by upholding the claims made at first instance by the appellant, including the claim that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs; or in the alternative |
|
— |
Refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling and, in those circumstances, make an order as to the costs of the appeal in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds. The first ground is based on infringement of the first paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, and the ambiguous, incoherent and contradictory nature of the statement of reasons. The second ground is based on infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and the inadequate statement of reasons.