- 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-308/20: Action brought on 18 May 2020 — PL v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0308
62020TN0308
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
10.8.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 262/30
(Case T-308/20)
(2020/C 262/41)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: PL (represented by: J. Van Rossum and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2019 to reassign ‘in the interests of the service’ the applicant from the Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation — EuropeAid, Neighbourhood Directorate, Finance, Contracts, Audit Unit (DEVCO.F5.DEL.West Bank and Gaza Strip.006) in East Jerusalem to the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport, Directorate of Shared Resources MOVE.ENER (MOVE.SRD) in Brussels, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2013;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU in that the contested decision does not comply with the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 (F-96/13, EU:F:2015:29) and of the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 (T-689/16, not published, EU:T:2018:925) in the light of the grounds constituting their essential bases, in so far as they are necessary for the purpose of determining the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2 and 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in that the contested decision was taken by an authority not competent to do so and infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the duty of sincere cooperation.