Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62018TN0217

Case T-217/18: Action brought on 28 March 2018 — DK v EEAS

OJ C 211, 18.6.2018, p. 27–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201806010091915462018/C 211/342172018TC21120180618EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180328272711

Case T-217/18: Action brought on 28 March 2018 — DK v EEAS

Top

C2112018EN2710120180328EN0034271271

Action brought on 28 March 2018 — DK v EEAS

(Case T-217/18)

2018/C 211/34Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: DK (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

—

Declare and rule:

—

That the decision of 23 May 2017 imposing a disciplinary penalty on the applicant, by which the net amount of his old-age pension is reduced by 20 %, namely a retention of EUR 1015 per month, until 30 September 2025 under Article 9(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations is annulled;

—

In the alternative, that the EEAS is ordered to pay the applicant a sum set ex aequo et bono to make good the loss suffered;

—

That, in any event, the EEAS is ordered 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 manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested decision, in that, firstly, the Appointing Authority took account of damage to the integrity of the institutions caused by the applicant which had already been remedied and, secondly, the duration of the disciplinary penalty imposed is arbitrary as it has been set by reference to the legal retirement age of the applicant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality vitiating the contested decision by reason of the unlawful failure to take account of the amount of time that has elapsed since the facts occurred, of the infringement of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations during the criminal proceedings and of the applicant’s family situation.
Top