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-447/22: Action brought on 18 July 2022 — NV v EIB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0447

62022TN0447

July 18, 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

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/85

(Case T-447/22)

(2022/C 359/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NV (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

and consequently,

annul the decision of 10 November 2021 characterising as unauthorised the applicant’s absences during the period from 13 September 2021 to 13 December 2021;

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 7 April 2022 dismissing the administrative action brought on 10 January 2022 against the decision of 10 November 2021;

order the EIB to pay the remuneration relating to the period from 13 September 2021 to 13 December 2021, together with default interest, the rate of which being the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank plus two percentage points;

order the EIB to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant;

order the EIB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 2.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of Annex X to the administrative provisions, infringement of Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union whether or not read in conjunction with Articles 2.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.6 of the administrative provisions, manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and misuse of rights.

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and manifest error of assessment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 33b of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of the administrative provisions.

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