CELEX: 62017CN0208
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-208/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NF against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-192/16: NF v European Council

17.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 231/12
            
         Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NF against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-192/16: NF v European Council
   (Case C-208/17 P)
   (2017/C 231/16)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: NF (represented by: P. O’Shea, BL, I. Whelan, BL, B. Burns, Solicitor)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Council
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the whole of the order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 by which the General Court held that the action be dismissed on the ground of the General Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Give a final judgment in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and hold that the General Court was wrong in law to decline jurisdiction and order the respondent in case T-192/16 to pay the costs of the appellant in respect of the order of the General Court and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Remit the issues raised in these proceedings for adjudication back to the General Court with a direction that it should accept jurisdiction.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Failure to give reasons;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Failure to properly consider whether the challenged agreement was in reality a decision of the respondent;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Ignoring relevant factual issues;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Failure to consider evidence that was before it;
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Failure to fully investigate and assess material issues;
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Failure to make further relevant enquiries;
            
         
               7.
            
            
               Making a decision without the benefit of sufficient information;
            
         
               8.
            
            
               Disregarding the principles established by the Court in case C-294/83.