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 62019TN0313

Case T-313/19: Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Taghani v Commission

OJ C 246, 22.7.2019, p. 34–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.7.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/34

Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Taghani v Commission

(Case T-313/19)

(2019/C 246/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jamal Taghani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

—

annul the contested decisions;

—

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for annulment, first, of the decision of EPSO of 23 July 2018 rejecting his claim for compensation brought in respect of his participation in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 and, secondly, if necessary, of the decision of 14 February 2019 rejecting his complaint, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU and manifest errors of assessment in the defendant’s examination of the three conditions required for the Union to incur non-contractual liability.

2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the obligation to state reasons arising therefrom, on the ground that the defendant did not take a position, in the contested decisions, on the argument made in the complaint relating to two conditions required for the Union to incur non-contractual liability, namely the existence of faults and the causal link.
Top