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 62013CN0220

Case C-220/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2013 by Kalliopi Nikolaou against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 20 February 2013 in Case T-241/09 Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union

IO C 189, 29.6.2013, p. 10–10 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.6.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/10

Appeal brought on 25 April 2013 by Kalliopi Nikolaou against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Second Chamber) on 20 February 2013 in Case T-241/09 Nikolaou v Court of Auditors of the European Union

(Case C-220/13 P)

2013/C 189/19

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Kalliopi Nikolaou (represented by: V. Khristianos, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 in Case T-241/09 and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

The appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 contains legal rulings which clearly infringe rules of European Union law and she challenges them by means of an appeal.

2.

According to the appellant, the judgment under appeal must be set aside because of infringement of fundamental rights and principles of European Union law, incorrect interpretation and application of European Union law, and the exceeding of jurisdiction (competence).

Specifically, the grounds of appeal are as follows:

—

First, infringement of the presumption of innocence.

—

Second, infringement of the principle requiring cooperation in good faith with the Tribunal d’arrondissement, Luxembourg, pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.

—

Third, exceeding of jurisdiction.

—

Fourth, incorrect interpretation and application of European Union law as regards the conditions for non-contractual liability and as regards Decision 99/50 of the Court of Auditors.
Top