- 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-711/17: Action brought on 13 October 2017 — Spinoit v Commission and Others
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0711
62017TN0711
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
15.1.2018
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 13/20
(Case T-711/17)
(2018/C 013/33)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Bernard Spinoit (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)
Defendants: European Commission and European External Action Service
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare the present application admissible and well-founded;
accordingly,
—annul the undated decision signed electronically on 3 August 2017, entitled ‘Request for replacement of senior expert No 3 of contract ENPI/2016/381-920 SOFRECO “Technical assistance recruitment for the programme to support the implementation of the Association Agreement (P3A III)”’;
—declare that full compensation is necessary for the material and non-material damage caused to the claimant by the serious violation of the right to good administration consisting in the adoption of the undated decision signed electronically on 3 August 2017, entitled ‘Request for replacement of senior expert No 3 of contract ENPI/2016/381-920 SOFRECO “Technical assistance recruitment for the programme to support the implementation of the Association Agreement (P3A III)”’;
—order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 209 950,00 for material damage and the amount of 15 000,00 for non-material damage;
in any event,
—order the defendants to pay the entirety of the costs;
—reserve to the applicant all other rights, dues, pleas in law and actions.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, to the extent that, first, the applicant had not been heard prior to the adoption of the contested decision and had not had access to the file concerning him and, second, the reasoning contained in that decision did not allow the applicant to understand the facts alleged against him.