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-4/17: Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Coedo Suárez v Council

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0004

62017TN0004

January 4, 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

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/35

(Case T-4/17)

(2017/C 078/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present application admissible;

annul the decision adopted on 4 March 2016 by the Secretary-General of the Council and, as necessary, the decision adopted on 27 September 2016 by the Secretary-General of the Council, rejecting the complaint;

order the defendant to pay a sum set ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000, or any other amount which the General Court deems fair, as damages for non-pecuniary harm, to be increased by late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the Council erroneously classified the letter of 20 November 2015 as a complaint and found, as a consequence, that it was inadmissible. Moreover, the request of 20 November 2015 for recognition of the fact that the invalidity was work-related in origin also cannot be regarded as inadmissible on the ground of unreasonable delay.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty of care, in that, by rejecting the applicant’s request for recognition of the fact that the invalidity was work-related in origin for reasons that are erroneous and contrary to the principles identified from the case-law, the Council extends the duration of the proceedings and thereby fails to respect the principle of reasonable time and, more generally, the principle of sound administration.

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