Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
KF v European Union Satellite Centre (SATCEN) (T-286/15)
III. Law
C. Substance
1. The claim for annulment
(b)The legality of the removal decision
(1)The lawfulness of the administrativ…
175

KF v European Union Satellite Centre (SATCEN) (T-286/15)

law://eu/cjeu/2015/t-286-15/para_175@2026-11-15

Key facts

Court: General Court
Case: T-286/15 · ECLI:EU:T:2018:718
Decided: 25 Oct 2018
Applicant: KF
Defendant: The European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen)
Rapporteur: R. da Silva Passos
Bench: 5 judges
S. Gervasoni, L. Madise, R. da Silva Passos, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, C. Mac Eochaidh
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62015TJ0286

History · 1 version

25 Oct 2018Reading

Judgment of 25 Oct 2018

175The authority responsible for an administrative investigation has, as is apparent from the case-law, broad discretion in the conduct of the investigation (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgments of 16 May 2012, Skareby v Commission, F‑42/10, EU:F:2012:64, paragraph 38; of 11 July 2013, Tzirani v Commission, F‑46/11, EU:F:2013:115, paragraph 124; and of 18 September 2014, CV v EESC, F‑54/13, EU:F:2014:216, paragraph 43).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Connections

Cited by 23: WU v European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (T-295/23); RWE Supply & Trading GmbH v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (T-95/23); Uniper Global Commodities SE v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (T-96/23); Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-336/20); KS and Others v Council of the European Union and Others (C-29/22 P)2 provisions; Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-599/22); Volkskreditbank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-406/22); Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG v Single Resolution Board (T-395/22); RN v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-606/22); Ascenza Agro, SA and Industrias Afrasa, SA v European Commission (T-77/20); Satabank plc v European Central Bank (T-72/20); Tazzetti SpA and Tazzetti, SA v European Commission (T-825/19); Philippe Casanova v European Investment Bank (T-266/21); TA v European Parliament (T-314/21); KF v European Union Satellite Centre (C-464/20); IB v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-22/20); AV and AW v European Parliament (T-43/20); IP v European Commission (T-121/20); Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma S.A. v European Medicines Agency (T-611/18); Giacomo Santini and Others v European Parliament (T-345/19); AV and AW v European Parliament (T-173/19); European Union Satellite Centre v KF (C-14/19 P)2 provisions; Tilly-Sabco v Council of the European Union and European Commission (T-707/18)
Cites 3: Marie Tzirani v European Commission (F-46/11); Carina Skareby v European Commission (F-42/10); CV v European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (F-54/13)