- 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-432/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2019 —Palo v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pensions — Pension scheme — Severance grant — Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Duty of care)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TA0432
62018TA0432
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
23.12.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 432/44
(Case T-432/18) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pensions - Pension scheme - Severance grant - Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Principle of good administration - Duty of care)
(2019/C 432/50)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Peeter Palo (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and D. Milanowska, Agents)
Re:
Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to pay the applicant the severance grant provided for in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the version resulting from Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), and annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Mr Peeter Palo to pay the costs.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.