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 62018TN0518

    Case T-518/18: Action brought on 31 August 2018 — YG v Commission

    OJ C 399, 5.11.2018, p. 41–41 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.11.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 399/41

    Action brought on 31 August 2018 — YG v Commission

    (Case T-518/18)

    (2018/C 399/56)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul, first, the defendant’s decision dated 13 November 2017 not to include the applicant in the list of promoted officials;

    —

    annul, subsequently, the defendant’s decision dated 17 May 2018 rejecting his complaint against the decision dated 13 November 2017;

    —

    order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s incurred legal 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 that the defendant violated Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The contested decision was based on certain manifest errors of assessment; furthermore, it failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not prove that an examination of the applicant’s merits was carried out in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration as protected by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by virtue of its lack of diligence in the drafting and substantiation of the contested decision.
    Top