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-904/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0904

62016TN0904

December 21, 2016
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

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/33

(Case T-904/16)

(2017/C 063/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)

Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions of 11 May 2016 reassigning the applicant, as an administrator to the Translation Directorate pursuant to the settlement in Case F-33/15;

hold that the EESC committed a misuse of power and infringed its obligation to act in good faith towards the applicant in knowingly misleading her as to the scope of the agreement concluded between the parties on 4 February 2016;

order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay 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 the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, since the contested decision was adopted in manifest breach of the amicable agreement reached in Case F-33/15 Labri v EESC.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the applicant was deliberately misled as to the scope of the agreement reached between the parties and more specifically as to the two committees’ interpretation of the terms of that agreement.

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