- 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-368/24: Action brought on 19 July 2024 – EO v Parliament
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0368
62024TN0368
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2024/5827
7.10.2024
(Case T-368/24)
(C/2024/5827)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: EO (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the defendant’s decision of 15 September 2023 informing the applicant about the termination of his contract in accordance with Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of employment of other servants (CEOS);
—if need be, annul the defendant’s decision of 17 April 2024 rejecting the administrative complaint of the applicant;
—order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered; and,
—order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging mainly, on the disguised disciplinary sanction, misuse of power/procedure, breach of Article 3 of Annex IX of the Staff Regulation and its useful effect.
2.Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of appreciation.
3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the defense rights.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of duty of care.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5827/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—