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-80/22: Action brought on 14 February 2022 — OF v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0080

62022TN0080

February 14, 2022
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

28.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/32

(Case T-80/22)

(2022/C 138/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

primarily,

annul the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing an extension of family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren;

annul the decision of 10 May 2021 of PMO.1 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021;

annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint dated 12 November 2021;

in the alternative,

order the defendant to pay compensation for psychological and material damage resulting from breach of administrative duty on the part of the administration, assessed at EUR 56 504,61;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action for annulment of the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing to extend family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact, erroneous and contradictory reasoning, a heavier burden of proof, failure to taken into account the specific circumstances of the case and infringement of the concept of maintenance.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of foreseeability, of legal certainty and of consistent application of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and failure to provide adequate reasons.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of the principle of affirmative action, unlawful rejection of the legalised certificate, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the right of every person to be heard before any decision affecting their interests or situation is taken.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the applicant’s situation and the reality of financial support for the stepchildren.

In support of her application for annulment of the decision of PMO.1 of 10 May 2021 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021, the applicant relies on two pleas in law

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and of the conditions laid down for the recovery of overpayments.

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