Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62016TN0916

    Case T-916/16: Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Winkler v Commission

    OJ C 46, 13.2.2017, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    28/12/2016
    Date lodged:
    28/12/2016
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    German
    Type of procedure:
    Staff cases

    13.2.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 46/28

    Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Winkler v Commission

    (Case T-916/16)

    (2017/C 046/33)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Bernd Winkler (Grange, Ireland) (represented by: A. Kässens, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the defendant’s decision of 30 September 2016 on his complaint and order the defendant to adopt a decision on the calculation of capital value at the time of the registration of the applicant’s claim on 14 September 2011;

    —

    in the alternative, order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to EUR 19 920,39, payable to the applicant’s pension account.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

    1.

    First plea in law: infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period, infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of a fair trial, and infringement of the obligations regarding information and consultation

    The applicant submits that, by processing his claim in a slow manner, the defendant infringed all of the principles governing the proper conduct of an administrative procedure. The applicant was also not given the opportunity to set out his views orally before the measure adversely affecting him was adopted.

    2.

    Second plea in law: infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality

    With regard to the second plea in law, the applicant states that similar claims of other colleagues, who were not older than him, were processed much more quickly, with no objective reason being provided to justify that difference in treatment.

    3.

    Third plea in law: breach of the protection of legitimate expectations

    The applicant concludes by contesting the deduction of interest from his calculated capital value for the period between the lodging of his claim and the final transfer of the lump sum, about which the applicant had not previously been informed.
    Top