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 62021TN0303

Case T-303/21: Action brought on 31 May 2021 — FC v EASO

OJ C 289, 19.7.2021, p. 46–46 (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:
31/05/2021
Date lodged:
31/05/2021
Author:
General Court
Form:
Judicial information
Authentic language:
Greek
Type of procedure:
Staff cases, Application for interim measures
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

19.7.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/46

Action brought on 31 May 2021 — FC v EASO

(Case T-303/21)

(2021/C 289/62)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul the contested measure rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 March 2021 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; and

—

order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The contested measure is vitiated by a breach of the principle of procedural economy and by an infringement of the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection, on the following grounds:

1.

infringement of the applicant’s right of defence, since the defendant continues not to connect the disciplinary proceedings with errors and infringements of fundamental rights committed by the defendant at the earlier stage — that is to say, at the pre-disciplinary stage — which also produce effects at the subsequent stage of the disciplinary proceedings; and

2.

infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.
Top