201807060681994312018/C 259/603202018TC25920180723EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180522454621

Case T-320/18: Action brought on 22 May 2018 — WD v EFSA


C2592018EN4510120180522EN0060451462

Action brought on 22 May 2018 — WD v EFSA

(Case T-320/18)

2018/C 259/60Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently,

annul the decision of 14 July 2017, taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, according to which the applicant was not among the staff members promoted during the 2017 reclassification round;

annul the decision of the AACC of 9 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 October 2017 directed against the decision of 14 July 2017;

annul the decision of 9 August 2017 (and notified on 10 August 2017), taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, not to renew the applicant’s employment contract;

annul the decision of the AACC of 12 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 November 2017 directed against that decision of 9 August 2017;

award damages for the harm suffered;

order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law as regards the decision not to renew her contract.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of 8 December 2012 concerning employment contract management adopted by EFSA.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and in particular the right to be heard.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the Work instruction relating to the contract of employment renewal process adopted by EFSA.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and misuse of power.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the Work instructions and the duty of care.

The applicant relies on a single plea in law as regards the decision not to promote her, alleging infringement of the decision of 22 April 2008 concerning the career of temporary staff and assignment to a post carrying a higher grade than that at which they were engaged, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.