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 C2007/183/30

Case C-238/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Derya Beyatli against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04: Derya Beyatli and Armagan Candan v Commission of the European Communities

SL C 183, 4.8.2007, p. 18–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

4.8.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/18

Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Derya Beyatli against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04: Derya Beyatli and Armagan Candan v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-238/07 P)

(2007/C 183/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Derya Beyatli (represented by: A. Demetriades, Δικηγόρος)

Other party: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

—

set aside the contested Order

—

annul the Respondent's decision of 5 May 2004

—

order the Respondent to pay the costs of this appeal

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the contested order should be set aside on the following grounds:

 

The Court of First Instance erred in law in failing to seek out evidence by means of measures of instruction or inquiry for the opening of the archives of not only EPSO but also of the European Community Representation in Cyprus and/or the Commission in general;

 

As a result of the CFI's omission, the Respondents did not disclose all relevant correspondence between the European Community Representation in Cyprus and/or the Commission and/or EPSO. Therefore the appellant's rights regarding a fair hearing were infringed during the proceedings before the CFI.
Top