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-72/21: Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Bowden and Young v Europol

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0072

62021TN0072

February 3, 2021
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

22.3.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/33

(Case T-72/21)

(2021/C 98/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ian James Bowden (The Hague, Netherlands) and Janey Young (The Hague) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the individual decisions of 30 March 2020 not to grant them an exception from the condition of nationality laid down in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS and, consequently, to terminate their respective contracts on the basis of Article 47 of the CEOS with notice to take effect ‘following the expiry of the Transition Period’, namely on 31 December 2020 according to the Withdrawal Agreement;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging illegality of the procedure and the criteria applied, an error of law and an error of interpretation, a lack of transparency, clarity, legal certainty, predictability and a failure to comply with the duty of sound administration in the adoption of a derogation procedure.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, a lack of individual and detailed examination of the case file, arbitrary decision-making, abuse of process and a failure to state reasons.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and prohibition of discrimination.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

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