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-826/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0826

62016TN0826

November 28, 2016
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

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/52

(Case T-826/16)

(2017/C 022/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luis Javier Casasnovas Bernad (Saint-Dominique, Dominican Republic) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and order

that the decision of 27 September 2016 terminating the applicant’s contract is annulled;

that the Commission is to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that Article 3(3) of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2011 is inapplicable.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in that the authority competent to conclude contracts of employment (AECC) renewed the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period while providing for a termination clause based on the occurrence of an event which may be assimilated to termination.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care in that, firstly, the AECC terminated the applicant’s contract before taking a decision on the renewal of his leave on personal grounds, secondly, it acted thus without even making an initial offer of reinstatement to him and, thirdly, nor did it inform him whether it was possible under the budget to pay him at the end of his leave.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 12b and 40(1a) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union by the AECC.

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