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 62018TN0241

Case T-241/18: Action brought on 18 April 2018 — Bruno v Commission

OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 29–30 (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:
18/04/2018
Date lodged:
18/04/2018
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
French
Type of procedure:
Staff cases
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link
201806150831955152018/C 231/372412018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180418293022

Case T-241/18: Action brought on 18 April 2018 — Bruno v Commission

Top

C2312018EN2920120180418EN0037292302

Action brought on 18 April 2018 — Bruno v Commission

(Case T-241/18)

2018/C 231/37Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Bruno (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that

—

the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 4 July 2017 is annulled;

—

in so far as necessary, the express decision rejecting the claim dated 18 January 2018 is annulled;

—

the defendant shall 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 an error of law committed by the European Commission in the application of Article 11(1) and 12(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations in so far as, by its decision, the Commission rejected the applicant’s application for grant of the leaving allowance provided for in Article 12(2) of that annex by, on the contrary, restricting him to application of article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, which, however, does not apply to his situation.

2.

Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality, in so far as the abovementioned provisions of the Staff Regulations infringe the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination because of a legislative lacuna.
Top