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 62017TN0275

Case T-275/17: Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Michela Curto v Parliament

OJ C 239, 24.7.2017, p. 49–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/49

Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Michela Curto v Parliament

(Case T-275/17)

(2017/C 239/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Michela Curto (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision of 30 June 2016, rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

—

order the defendant to award the applicant an amount of EUR 10 000, or any other amount which the Court will deem appropriate, as compensation for the non-material harm suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

—

order the defendant to pay the 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 manifest error of assessment

—

The applicant maintains that the defendant erred in holding that the disputed conduct was not improper and further erred in finding that it did not have the effect of undermining the applicant’s personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and the duty to provide assistance

—

The applicant argues, inter alia, that the defendant failed to deal with the request for assistance seriously and expeditiously, as prescribed by the applicable case-law.
Top