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 C2006/326/175

    Case F-134/06: Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Bordini v Commission

    OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 87–87 (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 326/87

    Action brought on 29 November 2006 — Bordini v Commission

    (Case F-134/06)

    (2006/C 326/175)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Giovanni Bordini (Dover, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi, C. Ronzi and I. Perego, lawyers)

    Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

    Forms of order sought

    —

    annul the decision of 25 January 2006 by which the appointing authority refused to recognise that the applicant was resident in the United Kingdom and, in consequence, refused to apply the weighting for the United Kingdom to his pension;

    —

    order the defendant to pay interest — on the basis of a rate two points higher than the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, and applicable during the period concerned, for major refinancing operations — on the amounts payable by virtue of retroactive application of the United Kingdom weighting to the applicant's pension with effect from 1 April 2004;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of his application, the applicant argues, first, that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as it is framed in terms so vague that it is not possible to understand the underlying reasoning.

    The applicant additionally invokes infringement of Article 82 of the former Staff Regulations and Article 20 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations; a manifest error of assessment of the facts giving rise to an error in law; breach of the principle of proportionality; and failure to respect the right to privacy.

    Lastly, the applicant submits that the Commission was in breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.

    Top