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 62019TN0848

    Case T-848/19: Action brought on 4 June 2020 — HS v Commission

    IO C 271, 17.8.2020, p. 39–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    17.8.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 271/39

    Action brought on 4 June 2020 — HS v Commission

    (Case T-848/19)

    (2020/C 271/50)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: HS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of 12 March 2019 to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period,

    —

    so far as necessary, annul the decision of 10 October 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint,

    —

    compensate for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, to 15 000 Euros,

    —

    order the defendant to pay all the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination on ground of disability and of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation, violation of Article 21 of the Charter, of the United Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations and, violation of the duty of care.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations: breach of the probationary period proper conditions, lack of guidance and lack and uncertainty of objectives, breach of the right to be heard and, manifest errors of assessment.

    3.

    On the request for compensation, the applicant exposes the fault committed by the defendant, the damage suffered and the link between the fault and the damage.
    Top