- 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-36/20: Action brought on 22 January 2020 — IF v Parliament
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0036
62020TN0036
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 114/10
(Case T-36/20)
(2020/C 114/09)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: IF (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision 16 April 2019 relieving the applicant of her duties as Deputy Secretary General of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe;
—order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;
—order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 1 000 in compensation for the impossibility to restore the applicant in her original legal position, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;
—order the defendant to pay 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 lack of competence of the author of the act and breach of ‘the principle of congruent forms’.
—It is argued in that regard that, whereas the contested decision was adopted by the Presidency of the Group, it should have been adopted by the Bureau thereof.
2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard before a measure affecting one adversely is taken.
—It is argued in that regard that the applicant was not given the opportunity to effectively put forward her point of view, before the contested decision was adopted.
3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly, impartially and carefully, and failure to state adequate reasons.
—It is argued in that regard that:
—the Presidency was not presented with all the relevant particulars of the case concerned with care and impartiality, before adopting the contested decision; and
—in endorsing the note of the Secretary General of the Group of 12 April 2019, which contained erroneous grounds, the Presidency tainted the contested decision with the same defect.