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-77/18: Action brought on 12 February 2018 — VE v ESMA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0077

62018TN0077

February 12, 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

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/26

(Case T-77/18)

(2018/C 134/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VE (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present appeal admissible and founded;

annul the applicant’s 2016 appraisal report in so far as it assesses the applicant’s performance as ‘unsatisfactory’;

together with, and so far as necessary, annul the decision of ESMA of 6 November 2017 which rejects the applicant’s complaint;

order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 10,000 Euros; and

order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by his lawyers for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.Plea of illegality in that the appraisal manual has been adopted by ESMA without having been submitted beforehand to the Staff Committee in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.

2.Breach of Article 43(1) of the Staff Regulations and Appraisal Manual in that the defendant made several manifest errors of assessment:

manifest errors of assessment in relation to the main activities of the applicant as regard the criteria ‘Efficiency’, ‘Abilities’ and ‘Conduct’; and

as regard the errors of assessment committed by the defendant in relation to the other activities of the applicant.

3.Breach of the duty of care and of good administration as regards the applicant’s health problems and as regard the lack of guidance provided to the applicant and adverse working conditions and the absence of adequate trainings.

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