- 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-676/17: Action brought on 2 October 2017 — UN v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0676
62017TN0676
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
27.11.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 402/51
(Case T-676/17)
(2017/C 402/67)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: UN (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the assessment of the applicant for 2015 according to assessment report No 260603 in its final version of 1 December 2015 (in the version which that assessment decision most recently maintained through the rejection of the applicant’s complaint on 21 June 2017);
—order the Commission to pay to the applicant an appropriate sum, in an amount to be determined by the Court, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; and
—order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law: manifest errors of assessment by the Commission, which are partially based on incorrect facts and on infringements of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
2.Second plea in law: infringement by the Commission of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).