CELEX: 62018TN0273
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-273/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

201806220621970612018/C 240/592732018TC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180430515111Case T-273/18: Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN5110120180430EN0059511511Action brought on 30 April 2018 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission
   (Case T-273/18)2018/C 240/59Language of the case: French
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            declare the present application admissible and well founded;
         
      and accordingly:
   
            —
         
         
            annul the decision of 6 July 2017;
         
      
            —
         
         
            annul, in so far as appropriate, the decision of 31 January 2018 rejecting the complaint;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order compensation for the non-material harm incurred by the applicant as a result of those decisions, estimated, symbolically, at EUR 1;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the defendant to pay all costs.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging breach of the mandate given to the Investigation and Disciplinary Office with regard to the administrative investigation carried out in relation to the applicant, and infringement of the principles of impartiality and sound administration.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence and of Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and, secondly, infringement of the principle of equality of arms during the hearing of the applicant, on the basis of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.
         
      
            3.
         
         
            Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and a manifest error of assessment.