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 C2006/010/52

    Case T-389/05: Action brought on 20 October 2005 — Ole Eistrup v European Parliament

    IO C 10, 14.1.2006, p. 26–26 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.1.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 10/26

    Action brought on 20 October 2005 — Ole Eistrup v European Parliament

    (Case T-389/05)

    (2006/C 10/52)

    Language of the case: Danish

    Parties

    Applicant(s): Ole Eistrup (Knebel, Denmark) (represented by: S. E. Hjelmborg, advokat)

    Defendant(s): European Parliament

    Form of order sought

    The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

    —

    annul the defendant's decision of 13 December 2004 and the defendant's reply of 12 July 2005;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 203 357 for lost earnings in the period 1 June 1998 to 1 September 2002, together with interest;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 200 000 for non-material damage, together with interest;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The applicant, who is employed in the Parliament's Danish language translation division, wished to be reinstated in his post after taking leave on personal grounds from 1 August 1992 to 31 July 1996. This only became possible however from 1 October 2002, since the Parliament was not able to identify an available post corresponding to the applicant's category and qualifications before that date.

    In support of his application the applicant states that he has fulfilled his obligation to mitigate his loss in connection with his claim for reimbursement of lost earnings.

    The applicant also claims that the defendant's alleged unlawful handling of the matter put the applicant in a state of uncertainty and anxiety, and that the defendant's conduct constitutes a clear breach of the applicant's rights and the confidence which every citizen must have in the Community's legal system.

    Top