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-518/18: Action brought on 31 August 2018 — YG v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0518

62018TN0518

August 31, 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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/41

(Case T-518/18)

(2018/C 399/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul, first, the defendant’s decision dated 13 November 2017 not to include the applicant in the list of promoted officials;

annul, subsequently, the defendant’s decision dated 17 May 2018 rejecting his complaint against the decision dated 13 November 2017;

order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s incurred legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The contested decision was based on certain manifest errors of assessment; furthermore, it failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not prove that an examination of the applicant’s merits was carried out in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration as protected by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by virtue of its lack of diligence in the drafting and substantiation of the contested decision.

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