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-415/20: Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KT v EIB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0415

62020TN0415

July 3, 2020
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

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/42

(Case T-415/20)

(2020/C 297/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KT (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action, including the plea of illegality it contains, admissible and well-founded;

as a result:

annul the decision adopted on 24 March 2020 imposing on her, as a disciplinary penalty, summary dismissal for grave misconduct, without notice and with severance grant;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a flaw due to lack of competence of the author of the act.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the ‘reasonable period’ rule, in particular infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality. First, the applicant raises a plea of illegality on the ground that Article 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank (EIB) does not comply with the principle of impartiality so far as objective impartiality is concerned. Secondly, she submits that the procedure put in place by the EIB infringed the principle of impartiality so far as subjective impartiality is concerned.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the rules relating to the protection of personal data.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

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