- 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-685/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — IR v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0685
62021TN0685
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
10.1.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 11/32
(Case T-685/21)
(2022/C 11/45)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: IR (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of 11 December 2020 by which the Brussels Settlement Office refused the renewal of the serious illness scheme in respect of the applicant’s son;
—annul the decision of 8 July 2021 by which the appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint filed under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based unlawfully on the second opinion of the Medical Officer.
2.Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decisions.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are, according to the applicant, vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and a distortion of the facts.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and the right to be heard.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based unlawfully on an opinion of the Medical Council.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the administrative procedure.