- 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-374/18: Action brought on 19 June 2018 — Labiri v EESC
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0374
62018TN0374
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
(Case T-374/18)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)
Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee
Form of order sought
—Request the defendant, as a measure of organisation of procedure, to produce the decision of 30 March 2016 of the Secretary General of the EESC by which he decides that no charges are to be brought against the applicant’s Head of Unit;
—Declare and rule:
—that the decision of 30 March 2016 of the Secretary General of the EESC to bring no charges against the applicant’s Head of Unit and to close her request for assistance/complaint of 14 December 2007 without taking further action is annulled;
—that the EESC is ordered to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons which flows from the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and infringement of the principles of cooperation flowing from the Administrative Cooperation Agreement between the EESC and the Committee of the Regions of 17 December 2007.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union conferring the right to proper administration on all persons. In particular, the contested decision was taken in breach of the applicant’s right to be heard and of observance of the rights of the defence.
3.Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment committed by the EESC in adopting a decision to close the matter without further action which referred unlawfully to a settlement reached in an action before the Civil Service Tribunal and to the findings of the administrative inquiry which had never examined whether the facts on which the applicant’s complaint was based could objectively have constituted psychological harassment.