- 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-494/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0494
62011TN0494
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
12.11.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 331/27
(Case T-494/11)
2011/C 331/53
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicants: Livo Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Kerkhove-Avelgem, Belgium), Anne Jeanne Cécile Magdalena Maria Sintobin (Brussels, Belgium), Stefano Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Shanghai, China), Maria Letizia Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Brussels, Belgium), Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (heirs) (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, R. Antonimi and G. Coppo, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
—Order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the murder of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and his wife, Ariane Lagasse de Locht;
—Order the Commission to pay compensatory interest and late payment interest accrued,
—Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the first plea in law, the Court is requested to order the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage unjustly suffered by the applicants as a result of the murder of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, former Commission official, and his wife, Ariane Lagasse de Locht. The applicants submit that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability because the Commission negligently failed to ensure that the apartment made available to the murdered official and his family was equipped with appropriate and effective security devices suitable for the purposes of ensuring their safety. In support of their requests, the applicants rely on the conclusions reached in the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09.
In the alternative, on account of the totally exceptional nature of the case, the applicants submit that the Commission is liable for the damage caused on the grounds of unlawful conduct.