EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/331/83
Case T-424/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility)
Case T-424/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility)
Case T-424/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No consultation of the previous immediate superior — Statement of reasons — Action for compensation — Late establishment — Non-material damage — Admissibility)
OB C 331, 30.12.2006, p. 38–38
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 331/38 |
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2006 — Angelidis v Parliament
(Case T-424/04) (1)
(Officials - Staff report - Action for annulment - No consultation of the previous immediate superior - Statement of reasons - Action for compensation - Late establishment - Non-material damage - Admissibility)
(2006/C 331/83)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha Pacha and J. de Wachter, Agents)
Re:
In the first place, annulment of the staff report relating to the applicant, an official in Grade A 3 of the European Parliament, for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002 and, second, application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by reason both of the alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the application; |
|
2. |
Orders each party to bear its own costs. |