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-49/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Angelidis v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN0049

62023TN0049

February 16, 2023
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

11.4.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/47

(Case T-49/23)

(2023/C 127/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Parliament’s decision of 15 July 2022 relating to a disciplinary penalty;

withdraw that decision from the applicant’s personal file;

reimburse to the applicant the sums deducted on that basis from his retirement pension, together with default interest as from the date of the first deduction;

order the Parliament to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 50 000 for the serious non-material and financial damage caused, including impairment of the peace of the applicant’s family life while at the same time he has to support his wife who suffers from a serious illness;

order the Parliament 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 infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The applicant submits that his son, who has reached his majority, was not entrusted to the care of his mother by a competent authority or pursuant to a legislative provision. Therefore, the applicant maintains that the Parliament was required to continue paying him the dependent child allowance.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(a) and (b) of Conclusion No 274/15 of the Heads of Administration. The applicant submits that, pursuant to the abovementioned provisions, the Parliament should have presumed that his son was the subject of actual maintenance, and should not have required proof of actual maintenance.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the penalty against him and that the Secretary-General of the Parliament showed a manifest lack of impartiality.

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