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-20/18: Action brought on 17 January 2018 — CV v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0020

62018TN0020

January 17, 2018
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

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/34

(Case T-20/18)

(2018/C 112/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CV (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decisions of 15 and 20 March 2017 and of 18 October 2017;

award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 475 by way of compensation for material damage plus statutory interest at the rate of 2,25 %, to be calculated as from the payment of that amount, or, in the alternative, as from the date on which the complaint was lodged, or, in the further alternative, as from the date on which the application was lodged, and the amount of EUR 1 by way of compensation for non-material damage;

order the Commission 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 irregularity of the administrative procedure preceding the adoption of the contested decisions, including before the Medical Committee, by which the application for recognition of the occupational origin of the applicant’s disease was rejected and certain costs and fees of the members of the Medical Committee were imposed on the applicant.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment made by a doctor in that doctor’s reports.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated in the contested decisions were insufficient.

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