Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62020TN0028

Case T-28/20: Action brought on 16 January 2020 — ID v EEAS

OJ C 95, 23.3.2020, p. 37–38 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.3.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/37

Action brought on 16 January 2020 — ID v EEAS

(Case T-28/20)

(2020/C 95/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ID (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare her application admissible;

—

annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 449 397,05, in compensation for the material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 20 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and,

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 84 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS):

—

on the elements in relation to which a finding of inadequacy must be made to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period;

—

on the level of inadequacy that must be met to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment:

—

on the failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment;

—

on the assessment of the facts capable of supporting a finding of obvious inadequacy.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.
Top