24Mr Hendrickx argues that, since his complaint had been made the subject only of an implied rejection, it was open to nim to put forward, in his action for annulment, only pleas directly related to the disputed decision. In the light of the case-law of the Court of First Instance and of the Court of Justice, according to which an applicant may amend his pleas in law and heads of claim following the replacement, in the course of proceedings, of the contested decision by a decision with the same subject-matter (Alpha Steel v Commission, cited above, paragraph 8; Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter v Commission, cited above, paragraph 11, and Case T-23/96 De Persio v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-483 and II-1413, paragraphs 32 to 34), he maintains that the Court of First Instance could not refuse him leave to amend his pleas and claims and, in particular, those establishing that Cedefop calculated the installation and resettlement allowances in disregard of his status as a seconded official.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.