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 C-272/20 P: Appeal brought on 19 June 2020 by Sebastian Veit against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18, Sebastian Veit v European Central Bank

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0272

62020CN0272

June 19, 2020
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

3.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

(Case C-272/20 P)

(2020/C 371/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Sebastian Veit (represented by: K. Kujath, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 in Case T-474/18;

annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 3 January 2018 on the classification of the appellant with effect from 1 January 2018, as clarified by the decision of the European Central Bank of 25 May 2018;

order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal infringes EU law. The General Court misinterpreted the general principle of equal treatment under Articles 20, 51(1) and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The General Court erred in deciding that the difference in treatment of internal and external candidates for recruitment with regard to their classification in step by the European Central Bank on the basis of various rules was justified and proportionate.

The case-law of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the provisions of the Staff Regulations on the classification in step of an official in service, which was applied mutatis mutandis to the case by the General Court, does not correspond with the facts that have given rise to the dispute.

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