This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0039
Case T-39/12 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission
Case T-39/12 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission
Case T-39/12 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission
IO C 109, 14.4.2012, p. 17–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.4.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 109/17 |
Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission
(Case T-39/12 P)
2012/C 109/39
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Roberto Di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: S. Woog and T. Bontinck, lawyers)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellant
|
— |
Declare his appeal admissible and well founded, and consequently: |
|
— |
Set aside the judgment under appeal of the Third Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 by which it dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s action seeking annulment of the decision by which the Commission refused to place him on leave for national service; |
|
— |
Grant the applicant the form of order sought by him before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of both proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging an error of law and mistaken and inadequate reasoning when the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union examined the plea submitted at first instance alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and equality and of the principle of reasonableness, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union did not in this case place any temporal limit on the effects of its interpretative judgment. |