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.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2007. # Tineke Duyster v Commission of the European Communities. # Public service - Officials - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case F-82/06.

ECLI:EU:F:2007:233

62006FO0082

December 14, 2007
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

(Civil service – Officials – Parental leave – Date when parental leave begins – Lis pendens – Manifest inadmissibility)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Duyster seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 May 2006 rejecting her complaint against the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2005 fixing the date for the start of her parental leave on 8 November 2004. Moreover, the applicant once again puts forward the same heads of claim as in Case F‑18/06 Duyster v Commission, namely, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 November 2005 fixing the date for the start of her parental leave on 8 November 2004, and second, payment of damages in compensation for the material and non-material damage caused by that decision.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114)

Just as the admissibility of an action must be judged by reference to the situation prevailing when the application was lodged, the admissibility of other pleadings, such as a plea of inadmissibility, must be judged at the time when they are submitted. Such an interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

(see para. 40)

See:

50/84 Bensider and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 3991, para. 8

T-236/00 R II Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II‑2943, para. 49; T-219/01 Commerzbank v Commission [2003] ECR II‑2843, para. 61

An action which is between the same parties, has the same purpose and is brought on the basis of the same submissions as an action brought previously must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see para. 47)

See:

172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9; 358/85 and 51/86 France v Parliament [1988] ECR 4821, para. 12

Judgment of 14 June 2007 in T-68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 16

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