- 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-433/10 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Allen and Others against the Order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2010 in case Allen and Others v Commission, F-103/09
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0433
62010TN0433
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 317/41
—
(Case T-433/10)
()
2010/C 317/74
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: John Allen (Horspath, United Kingdom) and Others (represented by: K. Lasok, QC and B. Lask, Barrister)
Other party to the appeal proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought by the appellant
—Allow the appeal;
—Quash the Order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber), dated 13 July 2010 in case F-103/09;
—Dismiss the first and second plea of admissibility raised by the defendant; and
—Order the costs of this appeal to be paid by the defendant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the present appeal, the appellants seek to have set aside the Order to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (EUCST) of 13 July 2010, delivered in case F-103/09 Allen and Others v Commission, by which the EUCST dismissed as inadmissible the action by which the appellants have sought damages and the annulment of a decision refusing to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by each applicant as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking.
In support of their appeal, the appellants submit that by concluding that an obligation to act within a reasonable period applied in the present context and, even if it did, by its approach to the duration and start point of that period, the EUCST acted contrary to the case law of the Court of Justice and to fundamental principles of European Union law.
—