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-180/18: Action brought on 12 March 2018 — VJ v EEAS

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0180

62018TN0180

March 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

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/69

(Case T-180/18)

(2018/C 161/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the calculation sheet forwarded to him by email of 22 June 2017 from the EEAS and, so far as necessary, the salary slip through which the payment of the education allowance for his children was/will be granted;

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, putting forward an objection of illegality, in so far as the contested decision, the note of 15 April 2016 on which it is based and the EEAS’s Guidelines infringe the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex X thereto.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision at issue. There are five parts to that plea.

First part, alleging infringement of the principles of diligence, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty and of sound administration and of the applicant’s acquired rights.

Second part, alleging failure by the EEAS to comply with its obligations, its poor administration, and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the applicant’s legitimate expectations.

Third part, alleging infringement of the right to found a family and the right to education.

Fourth part, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Fifth part, alleging that in adopting the measure the EEAS failed to balance the interests involved and infringed the principle of proportionality.

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