- 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-77/21: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — QC v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pension — Transfer of national pension rights — Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service — Circumscribed powers — Action for annulment and for damages — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — No action brought for failure to fulfil obligations — Inadmissibility — Request for directions to be issued — Clear lack of jurisdiction)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TB0077
62021TB0077
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
17.1.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/38
(Case T-77/21) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Civil service - Officials - Pension - Transfer of national pension rights - Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service - Circumscribed powers - Action for annulment and for damages - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - No action brought for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility - Request for directions to be issued - Clear lack of jurisdiction)
(2022/C 24/51)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: QC (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the notice of 6 April 2020 establishing the pension rights and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.
Operative part of the order
1.The action is dismissed, in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law, in part as being inadmissible and, in part, on account of the fact that the Court clearly does not have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the action.
2.QC is ordered to pay the costs.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.