EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0493
Case T-493/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA
Case T-493/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA
Case T-493/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA
OJ C 329, 22.9.2014, p. 19–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.9.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 329/19 |
Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA
(Case T-493/14)
2014/C 329/27
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Ingrid Alice Mayer (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: T. Mayer, lawyer)
Defendant: European Food Safety Authority
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
extend her secondment up to 30 June 2015; |
|
— |
declare unlawful the termination of her secondment agreement, more precisely the EFSA decision ‘Termination of the secondment’ of 16 April 2014; |
|
— |
order the defendant not to allow the ‘observer’ position of the seconded national expert on the staff committee to be re-selected; |
|
— |
declare unlawful the six-month suspension of her staff-committee activity; |
|
— |
order that she be granted access to all e-mails which were exchanged between the EFSA director and a private-law organisation active in the food sector; |
|
— |
in the alternative, order that that access to documents be granted to a third party, to be determined by the General Court, in order to examine a possible conflict of interests; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant relies on the following submissions in support of her action.
The applicant submits that she has a legal entitlement to an extension of her secondment as national expert as a result of the general principle of equality, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the prohibition of arbitrary action and Article 2 TEU.
The applicant complains in this regard that the non-extension of the secondment is based on an erroneous selection decision, or even on no selection decision at all.
The applicant also claims that her suspension from the staff committee is unlawful because no reasons were given, no hearing took place and no written decision was issued.
In addition, the applicant asserts a claim to have access to certain e-mails under Article 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). In this connection, she argues that official e-mails do not fall under the protection of personal data.
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).