CELEX: 62017TN0004
Language: en
Date: 2017-01-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-4/17: Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Coedo Suárez v Council

13.3.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 78/35
            
         Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case T-4/17)
   (2017/C 078/48)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present application admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision adopted on 4 March 2016 by the Secretary-General of the Council and, as necessary, the decision adopted on 27 September 2016 by the Secretary-General of the Council, rejecting the complaint;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay a sum set ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000, or any other amount which the General Court deems fair, as damages for non-pecuniary harm, to be increased by late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant invokes two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the Council erroneously classified the letter of 20 November 2015 as a complaint and found, as a consequence, that it was inadmissible. Moreover, the request of 20 November 2015 for recognition of the fact that the invalidity was work-related in origin also cannot be regarded as inadmissible on the ground of unreasonable delay.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty of care, in that, by rejecting the applicant’s request for recognition of the fact that the invalidity was work-related in origin for reasons that are erroneous and contrary to the principles identified from the case-law, the Council extends the duration of the proceedings and thereby fails to respect the principle of reasonable time and, more generally, the principle of sound administration.