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-681/20: Action brought on 13 November 2020 — OC v EEAS

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0681

62020TN0681

November 13, 2020
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

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/65

(Case T-681/20)

(2021/C 19/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OC (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

accordingly,

annul the decision of 27 January 2020 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s claim for compensation dated 27 September 2019;

if needed, annul the decision of 4 August 2020 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint of 17 April 2020;

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material and financial damage incurred, the latter being assessed respectively, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20,000 and EUR 580,889;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, infringement of Article 3.3 of the Charter of the Tasks and Responsibilities of EEAS Imprest Administrators, infringement of Article 3 of the Code of Professional Standards for EEAS Financial Audit Staff and infringement of Article 2 of Decision PROC HR(2011)008 of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

2.Second plea, alleging breach of the duty of care. The applicant submits in particular in that regard that her transfer was decided without observing the principle of equivalence of posts and that, given the circumstances of the case, her transfer was not justified by the interests of the service.

3.Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons, as well as infringement of the protection of personal data and of the right to respect for private and family life.

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