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 62022TN0021

    Case T-21/22: Action brought on 12 January 2022 — NY v Commission

    OJ C 95, 28.2.2022, p. 43–43 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 95, 28.2.2022, p. 16–17 (GA)

    28.2.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 95/43

    Action brought on 12 January 2022 — NY v Commission

    (Case T-21/22)

    (2022/C 95/60)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: NY (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 founded;

    —

    annul the first contested decision and, if necessary, the second contested decision;

    —

    order the defendant to pay all the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action against the decision of the Commission of 14 April 2021 dismissing the applicant’s claim for compensation filed on 22 December 2020, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration and the principle of impartiality. The applicant submits that, in the context of the preparatory inquiry of the claim for compensation, the requirement of impartiality has not been met, both subjectively and objectively.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to integrity and dignity and the existence of several manifest errors of assessment. The applicant claims that the defendant failed to comply with its duty to preserve and protect its dignity and its integrity, having regard to the acts of violence by security personnel against him and the finding of which is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care in that the applicant did not receive all the support which he was entitled to expect from the defendant.
    Top