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 62018TN0083

Case T-83/18: Action brought on 9 February 2018 — CH v Parliament

IO C 134, 16.4.2018, p. 28–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/28

Action brought on 9 February 2018 — CH v Parliament

(Case T-83/18)

(2018/C 134/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CH (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

—

Declare this application admissible;

—

Order the defendant to produce the findings of the APA Committee, the minutes of the testimony of the witnesses heard by the APA Committee and the file sent to the President of the European Parliament under Article 10 of the internal rules of the APA Committee;

—

Annul the contested decision and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

—

Order the defendant to pay EUR 68 500 in compensation for the applicant’s various non-pecuniary losses;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the obligation to state reasons, the principle of sound administration, the right to be heard and the rights of the defence, the duty of care, which vitiates the contested decision in this case, namely the decision of the European Parliament to reject the applicant’s application for assistance.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of Article 31 of the Charter, Article 12a of the Staff Regulations and Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of the duty of care.
Top