- 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-132/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0132
62013TN0132
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
27.4.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 123/21
(Case T-132/13)
2013/C 123/36
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Sonja Deweerdt (Rulles, Belgium); Didier Lebrun (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and Margot Lietz (Mensdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)
Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—Declare Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors unlawful inasmuch as it has the effect of ensuring the impunity of a Member who is guilty of harassment;
—Annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 13 December 2012 not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice in order to request it to examine whether Ms S., at that time a Member of the Court of Auditors, no longer fulfilled the requisite conditions or met the obligations arising from her office and, should her term of office have already ended, to deprive her of her right to a pension;
—Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
1.The first plea in law alleges that Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors is unlawful inasmuch as it ensures the impunity of a Member who is guilty of harassment.
2.The second plea in law relates to the fact that the contested decision is marred by inconsistency, inasmuch as the Court of Auditors expressly acknowledged Ms S.’s shortcomings whilst refusing to refer the matter of Ms S. to the Court of Justice.
3.The third plea in law alleges that there is no relevant reasoning to enable the applicants to assess the merits of the contested decision.
4.The fourth plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and an abuse of rights, inasmuch as the Court of Auditors examined the expediency of referring the matter of Ms S. to the Court of Justice only a year and a day after the external investigator had submitted the report.