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-728/20: Action brought on 14 December 2020 — OM v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0728

62020TN0728

December 14, 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

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/47

(Case T-728/20)

(2021/C 53/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should

annul the decision rejecting requests for reimbursement 247-251 and 252-256;

annul the decision of 23 March 2020 rejecting the complaint;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes first of all the admissibility of her action against a decision notified through the rejection, dated 23 March 2020, of her complaint made on 5 December 2019, which the applicant considers to be a new decision, adopted on the basis of a new examination of her situation, after the administration accepted the main argument developed through her first complaint. As regards the substance, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

1.First plea in law, alleging that the decisions are contradictory in relation to the change in reasoning following the previous reimbursement of similar expenses.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the lack of a specific and thorough examination of the requests for reimbursement of the medical expenses at issue.

3.Third plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the right to be heard.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the file.

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