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-335/21: Action brought on 15 June 2021 — PJ v EIT

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0335

62021TN0335

June 15, 2021
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/39

(Case T-335/21)

(2021/C 310/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PJ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Institution of Innovation & Technology

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the executive director’s decision of 13 October 2020 refusing her the benefit of teleworking from her place of origin;

in so far as necessary, annul the executive director’s decision of 9 March 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 10 November 2020;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of impartiality, objectivity and neutrality of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment, and the adoption of internal rules by an authority lacking competence to do so.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of internal rules, and arbitrary and unreasonable interpretation of such rules, as well as a lack of predictability and of legal certainty.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to care towards staff, a failure to take into account the interests of both the institution and the applicant, and the disproportionate nature of the decision in view of the actual interest of the institution.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to respect for private and family life set out in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) as well as the right to a work-life balance set out in Article 33 of the Charter.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the effective right to employment and failure to provide fair working conditions.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging a failure to take into consideration a force majeure event.

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