EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62020TN0220R(01)

Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-220/20 (OJ C 201, 15.6.2020)

OJ C 247, 27.7.2020, p. 49–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.7.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/49


Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-220/20

( Official Journal of the European Union C 201 of 15 June 2020 )

(2020/C 247/67)

The notice in the OJ in Case T-220/20, JL v Commission should read:

‘Action brought on 16 April 2020 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case T-220/20)

(2020/C 201/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (La Forclaz, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the decision of 11 July 2019 of the European Commission (appointing authority) issuing a warning to the applicant;

annul the decision of 27 March 2017 of the European Commission (appointing authority) to resume the case [confidential]; (1)

award the applicant compensation amounting to EUR 30 000, by way of special non-material damages, to be paid by the European Commission;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, that is to say, inappropriate measures for enforcement of the annulment judgment of the General Court, and infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem.

2.

Second plea in law alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, infringement of the principle of sound administration including the obligation to treat cases fairly and impartially, infringement of the principle of presumption of innocence, and a breach of the rights of the defence.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, infringement of the procedural rules applicable to administrative inquiries and disciplinary proceedings and infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

4.

Fourth plea in law, a request for special compensation on account of the abovementioned irregularities.’

(1)  Confidential data removed.


Top