Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TA0170

    Case T-170/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — RW v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Leave in the interests of the service — Automatic retirement — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Scope of the law — Literal, contextual and teleological interpretation)

    OJ C 220, 1.7.2019, p. 35–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    1.7.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 220/35


    Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — RW v Commission

    (Case T-170/17) (1)

    (Civil Service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Leave in the interests of the service - Automatic retirement - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Scope of the law - Literal, contextual and teleological interpretation)

    (2019/C 220/44)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: RW (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by G. Berscheid and A.-C. Simon, and subsequently by G. Berscheid and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

    Re:

    Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2017 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service pursuant to Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, at the same time, to require him to take compulsory retirement pursuant to subparagraph 5 of that provision.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2017 by which RW was placed on leave in the interests of the service and, at the same time, required to take compulsory retirement;

    2.

    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by RW, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.


    (1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.


    Top