- 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-1137/23: Action brought on 4 December 2023 — UF v Parliament
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN1137
62023TN1137
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
Official Journal of the European Union
Series C
C/2024/775
22.1.2024
(Case T-1137/23)
(C/2024/775)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: UF (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul decision D300769 of 30 January 2023, notified on the same day and implemented by decision D301641 of 17 February 2023, adopted by the Directorate-General of the Parliament by which the employment relationship was terminated unilaterally with effect from 30 April 2023, granting a notice period of three months;
—annul the decision rejecting the complaint adopted implicitly following a silence exceeding four months following the date on which the complaint was lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
—annul decision D103501 of the Secretary General of 28 August 2023 of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE), by which the complaint lodged on 25 April 2023 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations was rejected;
—order compensation for the damage totalling EUR 81 737,54, arising from the difference between the amount of the monthly salary of EUR 5 918,27 and the amount of the pension of EUR 1 642,21 for the period from 30 April 2023 to 29 February 2024 and from the loss of the pension rights related to the early termination of the employment relationship, and non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000; and
—order the Parliament to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant raises four pleas.
1.First plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and related breach of the right of defence.
2.Second plea, alleging error of law, infringement of the standards relating to the protection against unjustified dismissals.
3.Third plea, alleging manifest error of assessment, failure to discharge the burden of proof regarding the existence of damage to image.
4.Fourth plea, alleging misuse of power.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/775/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)