- 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-1136/23: Action brought on 1 December 2023 — Lianopoulou v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN1136
62023TN1136
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
Series C
C/2024/1871
(Case T-1136/23)
(C/2024/1871)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Anastasia Lianopoulou (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Quraishi, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—vary or, alternatively, annul the contested rejection decision of 1 September 2023 taken by [confidential] (1) in its capacity as appointing authority and declare that complaint [confidential] is well founded, and consequently, vary or, alternatively, annul the initial decision taken on 30 January 2023;
—rule that the applicant is entitled to the restoration of her career path including all missed advancements and the corresponding material compensation including interest from the theoretical date of disbursement and late payment interest;
—rule that the applicant suffered non-material harm equivalent to 12 months of her average pay for the last year of service, or, alternatively, any other amount to be decided by the Court;
—order the appointing authority to pay all the costs and expenses of the present proceedings, inter alia the costs relating to the expert opinion;
—order the Commission to pay the legal fees that the applicant had to pay in order to assert her rights, costs and legal fees.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, relying on the principle that compensation must be provided in full. The applicant asserts that the contested decision is not reasoned or that that reasoning is incorrect. Since the absence of professional assessments in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 was not attributable to the applicant, it should be held that the Commission was at fault.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the non-material harm arises from the misconduct of the defendant and from the annulled initial decision.
(1) Confidential data redacted.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1871/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)