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-266/21: Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Casanova v EIB

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0266

62021TN0266

May 17, 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

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/31

(Case T-266/21)

(2021/C 263/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Casanova (Fort-de-France, France) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently,

annul the decision of 12 June 2020 by which the applicant was informed that his contract had not been confirmed at the end of the probationary period and would therefore end on 30 June 2020;

where necessary, annul the EIB decision of 8 February 2021 rejecting the request for conciliation and the applicant’s request for administrative review submitted on 11 August 2020, thereby confirming the decision of 12 June 2020;

compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Convention on Staff Representation at the European Investment Bank (EIB) and of the principle of legal certainty.

2.Second plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act, infringement of the principle of impartiality and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3.Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment committed during the initial probationary period and during the extension of the probationary period.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers committed by the EIB.

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