This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0787
Case T-787/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by European Central Bank against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2014 in Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v ECB
Case T-787/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by European Central Bank against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2014 in Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v ECB
Case T-787/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by European Central Bank against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2014 in Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v ECB
OJ C 46, 9.2.2015, p. 56–57
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/56 |
Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by European Central Bank against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2014 in Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v ECB
(Case T-787/14 P)
(2015/C 046/72)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and M. López Torres, agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy)
Form of order sought by the appellant
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the judgment of 18 September 2014, in Case F-26/12, Cerafogli v ECB; |
|
— |
rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance; and |
|
— |
to award each party its own costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging an erroneous extrapolation of the Grolsch case-law to staff cases thereby misinterpreting the scope of the principle of effective judicial protection in the light of Article 47 of the Charter and the inadequacy of the grounds. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging a failure to take account of the rights of defence of the institution, disregarding the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure, and a failure to take account of relevant facts and misinterpretation of the principle of legal certainty. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging erroneous conclusions drawn from the nature of a plea of illegality, the misinterpretation of Article 277 TFEU and of the principle of legal certainty. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging a misinterpretation of the principle of effective judicial protection, a failure to take account of the facts of the present case, and an infringement of the principle of proportionality. |