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-433/18: Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Bax v ECB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0433

62018TN0433

July 13, 2018
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

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/52

(Case T-433/18)

(2018/C 328/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Annemieke Bax (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 14 December 2017, rejecting the applicant’s application to benefit from the career transition support scheme put in place by the ECB;

if need be, annul the ECB decision of 8 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s special appeal;

order the ECB to pay the applicant compensation for the non-material damage suffered in the amount of EUR 20 000;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and legal certainty.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that decision SEC/EB/X/17/398a.rev-1/final (‘General Methodology for the Practical Implementation of the Career Transition Support Scheme (CTS)’) is illegal, inter alia because it breaches Decision ECB/2017/NP 19 of 17 May 2017.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to discharge its duty of care to the applicant.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to Directive 2006/54. (1)

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality owing to the application of disproportionate eligibility criteria.

* Language of the case: English.

Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

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