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 62008TN0012

Case T-12/08 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2008 by M against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07, M v EMEA

SL C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 59–59 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/59

Appeal brought on 4 January 2008 by M against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07, M v EMEA

(Case T-12/08 P)

(2008/C 64/95)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

Form of order sought by the appellant

—

set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 October 2007 in M v European Medicines Agency in Case F-23/07;

—

annul the decision of the EMEA of 25 October 2006 in so far as it dismisses the request of 8 August to consult the Invalidity Committee;

—

annul the decision of the EMEA dismissing the request for compensation;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant asks the Court to set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing, on the ground that it is inadmissible, the action for annulment of the decision of 25 October 2006 by which the European Medicines Agency dismissed his request to set up and Invalidity Committee.

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea alleging infringement of Community law. He claims that the Civil Service Tribunal has committed an error of interpretation with respect to the scope of his action at first instance and, therefore, it gave a ruling ultra petita. He also claims that the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 33(1) and (2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities.

Top