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.

Case T-537/17: Action brought on 11 August 2017 — De Loecker v EEAS

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0537

62017TN0537

August 11, 2017
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

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/40

(Case T-537/17)

(2017/C 347/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

Declare and order that

the decision of 10 October 2016 by which the European External Action Service requested the request for assistance under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union made by Mr De Loecker is annulled;

the European External Action Service shall pay the applicant the sum of EUR 250 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

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 infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the defendant, by adopting the decision of 10 October 2016 by which it rejected the request for assistance made by the applicant (‘the contested decision’) disregarded the grounds of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 December 2015, De Loecker v EEAS (F-34/15, EU:F:2015:153). The applicant is also of the opinion that the defendant disregarded the procedure implemented by the Commission Investigating and Disciplinary Office (IDOC) following the judgment of 14 February 2017, Kerstens v Commission (T-270/16, not published, EU:T:2017:74).

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and, more particularly, infringement of the right to be heard and of the right of access to the file flowing from Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

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