Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TA0234(01)

    Case T-234/11 P-RENV-RX: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2013 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Review of the judgment of the General Court — Action at first instance dismissed as inadmissible — Pensions — Increase in the contribution to the pension scheme — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Reasonable period)

    OJ C 245, 24.8.2013, p. 8–8 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 245, 24.8.2013, p. 6–6 (HR)

    24.8.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 245/8


    Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2013 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB

    (Case T-234/11 P-RENV-RX) (1)

    (Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Review of the judgment of the General Court - Action at first instance dismissed as inadmissible - Pensions - Increase in the contribution to the pension scheme - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Reasonable period)

    2013/C 245/10

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Appellants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 34 other appellants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

    Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

    Re:

    Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 February 2011 in Case F-34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB [2011] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that order set aside.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 February 2011 in Case F-34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB;

    2.

    Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

    3.

    Reserves the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


    Top