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 62017TN0817

    Case T-817/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Schokker v EASA

    IO C 63, 19.2.2018, p. 16–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    19.2.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 63/16

    Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Schokker v EASA

    (Case T-817/17)

    (2018/C 063/21)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Boudewijn Schokker (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

    Form of order sought

    —

    Declare and rule:

    —

    That the EASA shall pay the applicant the sum of EUR 80 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;

    —

    That the EASA shall pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, seeking to establish that EASA’s authority empowered to conclude contracts (‘the AECC’) committed a number of administrative errors.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the AECC made an unlawful offer of employment to the applicant which, due to that fact, he was unable to accept unconditionally.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the AECC refused to correct that offer of employment, despite the fact that it was manifestly vitiated by illegality.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the abrupt withdrawal of the offer of employment by the AECC resulted in the definitive closure of the procedure to recruit the applicant.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the AECC failed to have regard to the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure by systematically frustrating all proposals for an out-of-court resolution to the dispute.
    Top