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-452/24: Action brought on 29 August 2024 – DR v EIOPA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0452

62024TN0452

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/2024/6108

21.10.2024

(Case T-452/24)

(C/2024/6108)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DR (represented by: N. Flandin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of EIOPA of 31 October 2023 rejecting the applicant’s Article 90(1) request for financial compensation for the damages he has suffered due to EIOPA’s illegal conduct;

together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the decision of EIOPA rejecting the Article 90(2) complaint filed by the applicant against the contested decision;

order the compensation of 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 the following pleas in law and arguments.

1.As regard admissibility, the applicant considers that the present claim is admissible for the following reasons:

The request for financial compensation due to EIOPA’s illegalities filed on 2 July 2023 is an Article 90(1) Staff Regulations and not an Article 90(2) Staff Regulations complaint.

The Article 90(1) requests and Article 90(2) complaints filed by the applicant after the EIOPA decision of 2 June 2020 rejecting the complaint of 3 February 2020 against the EIOPA decision terminating the applicant’s contract, are different, in terms of object and content, from the Article 90(1) request made in the present claim.

2.As regards the merits, the applicant claims that the defendant has committed several illegalities and, in particular, that EIOPA’s conduct during the recruitment of the applicant, during the ethics checks in 2018 and 2019 and during the administrative enquiry is flawed by:

a violation of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations;

a violation of the principles of good administration and due diligence;

a violation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018; (1) and

insufficient motivation.

3.The unlawful conduct of which the applicant complains has, he alleges, led directly to material and non-material damage.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6108/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