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 62010FN0022

    Case F-22/10: Action brought on 1 April 2010 — Bombín Bombín v Commission

    OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 54–54 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.6.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 148/54

    Action brought on 1 April 2010 — Bombín Bombín v Commission

    (Case F-22/10)

    2010/C 148/96

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: Luis María Bombín Bombín (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Pardo Pedernera, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

    Annulment of the decision of the European Commission, in response to the applicant’s complaint, to grant financial compensation in respect of only 12 rather than 29 days of accrued leave which he had not yet taken at the time he began his leave of absence.

    Form of order sought

    —

    annul the decision of the European Commission, issued on 4 January 2010, to grant and pay to the applicant financial compensation for only 12 days;

    —

    grant to the applicant (for calculation purposes and in respect of the financial compensation) all the days of leave (in total 29 days) which he had accrued and had not yet taken at the time he began his leave of absence;

    —

    as to costs, the applicant submits no claim, since he considers that the resolution of the present case by the Tribunal is important for the parties, both being in good faith, and the case does not justify claims in respect thereof.
    Top