- 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-586/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MN v Europol
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0586
62020TN0586
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
14.12.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 433/55
(Case T-586/20)
(2020/C 433/69)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: MN (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
Defendant: The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of 6 March 2020 not to renew the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period;
—order Europol to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision;
—order Europol to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging illegality of the criterion used to justify the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period, in that it does not allow the interests of the service to be identified.
2.Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging multiple manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision.