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 62022TN0442

    Case T-442/22: Action brought on 12 July 2022 — PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

    OJ C 380, 3.10.2022, p. 16–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    3.10.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 380/16

    Action brought on 12 July 2022 — PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

    (Case T-442/22)

    (2022/C 380/19)

    Language of the case: Greek

    Parties

    Applicant: PU (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decisions, namely (a) Decision 015/2022 of 23 March 2022 of the College of the defendant rejecting the complaint of 3 December 2021 against Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (b) Decision 090/2021 of 8 September 2021 of the College of the defendant, (c) Decision 021/2022 of 30 May 2022 of the College of the defendant and (d) any other related action or omission of the organs of the defendant,

    —

    order the defendant to pay the total amount of EUR 100 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered, and

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging procedural errors:

    —

    breach of the principle of impartiality, of the principle of equality in the appraisal procedure to be followed in respect of the candidates proposed by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, of the essential procedural requirements under Articles 1 to 3 of Decision No 013/2020 of the College laying down rules on the procedure for the appointment of European Delegated Prosecutors, of the obligation to provide a record of the interview and of the right to be heard.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging flaws in the grounds of the contested decisions.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and exceeding of the limits of discretion.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.
    Top