EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0677
Case T-677/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB
Case T-677/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB
Case T-677/16: Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB
OJ C 419, 14.11.2016, p. 54–55
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
14.11.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 419/54 |
Action brought on 22 September 2016 — Bowles v ECB
(Case T-677/16)
(2016/C 419/71)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi et M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)
Defendant: European Central Bank
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
declare the application admissible and well founded; |
accordingly:
— |
annul the decision of the CSO, adopted on 29 February 2016 under the authority of the management board and notified to staff on 11 March 2016, to exclude the applicant from the ASI exercise for the year 2016; |
— |
annul the decision rejecting the special appeal dated 5 July 2016 and received on 13 July 2016; |
— |
order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by the applicant consisting in the loss of a chance of obtaining an ASI in 2016 evaluated at EUR 49 102; |
— |
order the payment of compensation for non-material damage assessed on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 15 000; |
— |
order the defendant to pay all 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 infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 12 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’) and Article 51 of the conditions of employment of ECB staff (‘the conditions of employment’), of the right to career and promotion prospects as well as of the principle of legal certainty.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging the inability of the Chief Services Officer (‘CSO’) to decide not to follow the procedure set out in Circular No 1/2011 in respect of the applicant.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging lack of consultation of the Staff Committee, in breach of Article 27 of the Charter and Articles 48 and 49 of the conditions of employment
|