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 62021TN0253

Case T-253/21: Action brought on 11 May 2021 — Aquino v Parliament

OJ C 252, 28.6.2021, p. 31–31 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.6.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/31

Action brought on 11 May 2021 — Aquino v Parliament

(Case T-253/21)

(2021/C 252/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

accordingly,

—

annul the decision of 7 July 2020 by which the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Personnel annulled the election of the president of the Staff Committee and decided to rerun that election;

—

annul the constitutive meeting of 14 September 2020 and the elections which were held during that meeting and, in particular, the election of the president of the Staff Committee;

—

annul the decision of 5 February 2021 rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant on 6 October 2020;

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000;

—

order the defendant to pay the entirety of 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 infringement by the defendant of its duty to ensure that officials and those elected by them have complete freedom to choose their representatives in accordance with established rules. The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 4 of the Staff Committee’s Rules of Procedure and of the duty of due diligence.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a hearing and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Top