This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TA0072
Case T-72/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Bowden and Young v Europol (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Europol staff — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Loss of nationality of a Member State — Termination of contract — Article 47(b)(iii) of the CEOS — Request for an exception from the condition of employment provided for in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS — Refusal to grant an exception — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Length of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Interest of the service — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment)
Case T-72/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Bowden and Young v Europol (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Europol staff — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Loss of nationality of a Member State — Termination of contract — Article 47(b)(iii) of the CEOS — Request for an exception from the condition of employment provided for in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS — Refusal to grant an exception — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Length of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Interest of the service — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment)
Case T-72/21: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Bowden and Young v Europol (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Europol staff — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — Loss of nationality of a Member State — Termination of contract — Article 47(b)(iii) of the CEOS — Request for an exception from the condition of employment provided for in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS — Refusal to grant an exception — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Length of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Interest of the service — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment)
OJ C 24, 23.1.2023, p. 36–36
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 23/11/2022
- Date lodged:
- 03/02/2021
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- French
- Type of procedure:
- Staff cases - unfounded
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62021TJ0072
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
23.1.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 24/36 |
Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — Bowden and Young v Europol
(Case T-72/21) (1)
(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Europol staff - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Loss of nationality of a Member State - Termination of contract - Article 47(b)(iii) of the CEOS - Request for an exception from the condition of employment provided for in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS - Refusal to grant an exception - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Length of the administrative procedure - Reasonable time - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Interest of the service - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment)
(2023/C 24/49)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Ian James Bowden (The Hague, the Netherlands), Janey Young (The Hague) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: A. Nunzi, O. Sajin and C. Falmagne, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)
Re:
By their action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of the decisions of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) of 30 March 2020, by which it refused to grant them an exception from the condition of nationality laid down in Article 12(2)(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’) and consequently terminated their respective contracts on the basis of Article 47(b)(iii) of the CEOS.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Mr Ian James Bowden and Mrs Janey Young to pay the costs. |
