CELEX: 62019TN0083
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-83/19: Action brought on 12 February 2019 — AL v Commission

1.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 122/28
            
         
      Action brought on 12 February 2019 — AL v Commission
      (Case T-83/19)
      (2019/C 122/32)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: AL (represented by: A. Blot and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the action admissible and well founded;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation submitted on 19 December 2017 and, if necessary, the decision of 12 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging breach of the defendant’s contractual commitments to the applicant, in that the Commission failed to comply with the undertaking it had given by appointing the applicant as the European Union facilitator for the Congo Basin Forests Partnership.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.