- 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-757/17: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2018 — Kerstens v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Enforcement of a judgment delivered by the General Court on appeal — Withdrawal of the decision imposing a reprimand — Reopening of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the cancelled sanction — Claim for annulment — Act not adversely affecting an official — Claim for damages — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TB0757
62017TB0757
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
27.8.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 301/36
(Case T-757/17) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment delivered by the General Court on appeal - Withdrawal of the decision imposing a reprimand - Reopening of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the cancelled sanction - Claim for annulment - Act not adversely affecting an official - Claim for damages - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2018/C 301/47)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of two Commission memoranda of 27 March and 6 April 2017 and (ii) compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the outcome and duration of the disciplinary proceedings CMS 15/017 and CMS 12/063.
Operative part of the order
1.The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2.Mr Petrus Kerstens is ordered to pay the costs.
(<span class="note"> <a id="ntr1-C_2018301EN.01003601-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2018301EN.01003601-E0001">*1</a> </span>) OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.