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 C2006/022/29

Case T-400/05: Action brought on 2 November 2005 — T v Commission

SL C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 15–15 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
28/01/2006; Uvodna izjava
Author:
Sud prvog stupnja
Form:
Pravosudna informacija

28.1.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/15

Action brought on 2 November 2005 — T v Commission

(Case T-400/05)

(2006/C 22/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: T (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

—

annul, as far as necessary, the decision of 20 July 2005 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaints lodged on 10 February 2005 and 21 March 2005 against the Commission's decision concerning the loss of her days of leave for 2004 and against the Commission's decision to consider the applicant's absences from 15 November 2004 to be improper;

—

establish the liability of the European Community as a result of the contested decision;

—

award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, in an amount of EUR 58 395.39;

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a former Commission official, in retirement since 1 September 2005. By her action, she contests the defendant's decision to consider some of her absences in 2004 to be improper and to be set against her annual leave entitlement and her remuneration. In support of her action she alleges infringement of the duty to give reasons, infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations in so far as she has medical certificates for the periods of absence at issue. In addition, she alleges infringement of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations and Annex V thereto concerning annual leave, a manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers.

The applicant also claims that she should be compensated for both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss that she allegedly incurred as a result of the defendant's actions.

Top