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 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

    IO 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)

    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for the withdrawal of the offer of employment at issue was irrelevant, as an offer of employment can, in any case, be withdrawn at any moment without being subject to any conditions.

    Top