- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-143/22: Action brought on 11 March 2022 — OP v Parliament
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0143
62022TN0143
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
10.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 191/36
(Case T-143/22)
(2022/C 191/46)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: OP (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decisions of 7 June 2021 and 10 January 2022, or declare them null and void;
—accordingly, acknowledge that the applicant is entitled to receive a survivor’s pension as defined by the first paragraph of Article 79 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;
—accordingly, acknowledge that Mr [confidential] is entitled to receive an orphan’s pension as defined in Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. Otherwise, in so far as necessary, grant Mr [confidential] the orphan’s pension provided for in the first paragraph of Article 80 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;
—in any event, order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) resulting from a breach of the principle of equal treatment and discrimination on grounds of age.
2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.
3.Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment resulting from the failure to take into account the applicant’s particular situation.
4.Fourth plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations based on discrimination on grounds of disability.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law in the application of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
6.Sixth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging breach of the administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
* Language of the case: French.
Confidential data omitted.