- 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-585/19: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2021 — EJ v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Remuneration — Travel costs — Double dependent child allowance — Child with serious illness — Capping of the backdated reimbursement of those costs and of that double allowance — Reasonable period — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Action for annulment and for damages)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TA0585
62019TA0585
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
10.5.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 182/51
(Case T-585/19) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Travel costs - Double dependent child allowance - Child with serious illness - Capping of the backdated reimbursement of those costs and of that double allowance - Reasonable period - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Action for annulment and for damages)
(2021/C 182/69)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: EJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)
Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: J. Klein, M. Loizou and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)
Re:
Application based on Article 270 TFEU and on Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 16 February 2018 capping the backdated reimbursement of the recurring travel costs incurred by the applicant owing to her child’s serious illness at 18 months and of the decision of 23 March 2018 capping the backdated award of the double dependent child allowance at five years and, secondly, compensation for the material and pecuniary harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.