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-450/24: Action brought on 29 August 2024 – EZ v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0450

62024TN0450

August 29, 2024
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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/6107

21.10.2024

(Case T-450/24)

(C/2024/6107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EZ (represented by: K. Djaber, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the current action admissible and founded;

annul the defendant’s decision of 25 October 2023 not renewing the applicant’s employment contract;

and, so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 29 May 2024 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against a decision of 25 October 2023;

grant the reinstatement of the applicant; alternatively,

grant compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant in the amount of EUR 48 697,88; alternatively,

grant compensation amounting to 90 % of the applicant’s gross salaries, including pension contributions, for the loss of a serious chance of having his work contract renewed; and

grant compensation for the non-material harm, as evaluated ex æquo et bono at EUR 10 000;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the grounds relied on in the contested decision and in the decision not to renew the contract, which are unfounded.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care, on the ground that the defendant did not balance the interest of the service against the interest of the staff member.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6107/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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