EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010FB0032
Case F-32/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Wilk v Commission (Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Reimbursement of expenses — Installation allowance — Installation with family at the place of employment — Recovery of undue payments — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Case F-32/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Wilk v Commission (Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Reimbursement of expenses — Installation allowance — Installation with family at the place of employment — Recovery of undue payments — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Case F-32/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Wilk v Commission (Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Reimbursement of expenses — Installation allowance — Installation with family at the place of employment — Recovery of undue payments — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
IO C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 28–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.5.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 138/28 |
Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Wilk v Commission
(Case F-32/10) (1)
(Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Reimbursement of expenses - Installation allowance - Installation with family at the place of employment - Recovery of undue payments - Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2012/C 138/60)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Christian Wilk (Trier, Germany) (represented by: R. Adam, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)
Re:
Application for annulment of decisions ordering recovery of one half of the installation allowance paid to the applicant following his divorce, and an application for damages
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
Mr Wilk’s action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
|
2. |
Mr Wilk is to bear all the costs. |