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 62018TN0273

    Case T-273/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

    OJ C 240, 9.7.2018, p. 51–51 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    201806220621970612018/C 240/592732018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430515111

    Case T-273/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

    Top

    C2402018EN5110120180430EN0059511511

    Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

    (Case T-273/18)

    2018/C 240/59Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    declare the present application admissible and well founded;

    and accordingly:

    —

    annul the decision of 6 July 2017;

    —

    annul, in so far as appropriate, the decision of 31 January 2018 rejecting the complaint;

    —

    order compensation for the non-material harm incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions, estimated, symbolically, at EUR 1;

    —

    order the defendant to pay all costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging breach of the mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office with regard to the administrative investigation carried out in relation to the applicant, and infringement of the principles of impartiality and sound administration.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence and of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and, secondly, infringement of the principle of equality of arms during the hearing of the applicant, on the basis of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and a manifest error of assessment.
    Top