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 62012TN0562

    Case T-562/12: Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Dalli v Commission

    IO C 46, 16.2.2013, p. 24–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.2.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 46/24

    Action brought on 24 December 2012 — Dalli v Commission

    (Case T-562/12)

    2013/C 46/43

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: John Dalli (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: L. Levi, A. Alamanou and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Annul the oral decision of 16 October 2012 of his termination of office with immediate effect, taken by the President of the European Commission;

    —

    Order the defendant to pay compensation of both the moral and material prejudice; and

    —

    Order the defendant to bear the entire costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 245 and 247 TFEU, as the challenged decision has been adopted by an non competent author.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, violation of Article 17.6 TEU and of the general principle of legal certainty, as the challenged decision cannot be considered as entailing a valid resignation of the applicant.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging manifests errors and breach of procedural rules, as the challenged decision does not rest on valid grounds and the OLAF findings, on which the challenged decision is based, result from an illegal procedure.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of defence, as the applicant was unable to make any appraisal and assessment of the facts to be held against him.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality, as the applicant was unable to know which are the objectives legitimately pursued by the challenged decision and if any possible other measure less punitive has been explored.
    Top