- 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-547/18: Action brought on 14 September 2018 — Teeäär v ECB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0547
62018TN0547
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
26.11.2018
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 427/84
(Case T-547/18)
(2018/C 427/111)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Raivo Teeäär (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)
Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the ECB Executive Board of 27 February 2018 by which the applicant’s application for support for transition to a career outside the ECB was rejected;
—if need be, annul the decision of the Executive Board dated 3 July 2018 rejecting the special appeal directed by the applicant against the decision of the Executive Board of 27 February 2018;
—grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice he allegedly suffered consisting in the career transition support financial package, estimated at EUR 101 447, increased by late interest calculated at the main refinancing rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 percentage points per annum;
—order the defendant to pay all 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 the illegality of Article 2.3.1 of the ECB Staff Rules, in that this rule is said to infringe the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality; the contested decision is, moreover, flawed by a manifest error of appreciation.
2.Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of Article 2.3.1 of the Staff Rules in that this rule is said to discriminate based on age and thus contravene Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78. (1)
3.Third plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, that the contested decision is illegal due to a manifest error of assessment and a violation of the duty of care.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, the infringement of Article 2.3.1 of the Staff Rules.
(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)