- 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-833/16: Order of the General Court of 23 October 2017 — Karp v Parliament (Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Classification — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Premature complaint — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TB0833
62016TB0833
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
C 5/43
(Case T-833/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Action for annulment and for damages - Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Classification - Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Premature complaint - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 005/58)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament (represented by Í. Ní Riagáin Düro and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)
Re:
ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decisions classifying the applicant in function group I, grade 1, under the contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant concluded on 25 February 2015, and in function group II, grade 4, step 1, under the contract of employment as contract agent concluded on 12 May 2016 and, secondly, seeking compensation for the damages allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those classifications.
Operative part of the order
1.The request for an expedited procedure is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2.The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
3.Mr Kevin Karp is ordered to pay the costs
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.