EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-108/24: Action brought on 21 February 2024 – Stanecki v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0108

62024TN0108

February 21, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/3072

13.5.2024

(Case T-108/24)

(C/2024/3072)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rafal Stanecki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

annul the contested decision and, if necessary, the decision to reject the complaint;

order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered on the basis of an amount assessed at EUR 50 000;

order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant assessed at EUR 50 000 and all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the tripartite appointing authority of 3 July 2023 imposing on the applicant the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a period of twelve months, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating several preparatory acts.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).

3.Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 17(a) of the Staff Regulations, that is to say, of the right to freedom of expression also recognised by Article 11(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 10 and 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, that is to say, of the principle of proportionality.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3072/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia