CELEX: 62012CN0183
Language: en
Date: 2012-04-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-183/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 April 2012 by Chafiq Ayadi against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09: Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission

30.6.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 194/12
            
         Appeal brought on 18 April 2012 by Chafiq Ayadi against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2012 in Case T-527/09: Chafiq Ayadi v European Commission
   (Case C-183/12 P)
   2012/C 194/19
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Chafiq Ayadi (represented by: H.A.S. Miller, Solicitor)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The Appellant seeks the following order if successful on both pleas:
   
               —
            
            
               the order of the General Court dated 31 January 2012 is quashed
            
         
               —
            
            
               it is declared that the action for annulment is not devoid of purpose
            
         
               —
            
            
               the matter be remitted back to the General Court for it to determine the annulment application
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Commission do pay the costs of this appeal and the costs of defending the Commission's application to find the annulment action devoid of purpose before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Appellant raises the following two pleas in law:
   
               A.
            
            
               The General Court erred when it failed to:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           hear from the Advocate-General and/or
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           invite representations from the Appellant as to whether the oral procedure ought to be opened and/or
                        
                     
                           (c)
                        
                        
                           open the oral procedure on the question as to whether the application to annul was devoid of purpose.
                        
                     
         
               B.
            
            
               The General Court erred in finding that the action for annulment was not capable of conferring material advantage upon the Appellant.