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 62020TN0119

    Case T-119/20: Action brought on 24 February 2020 — IN v EASME

    OJ C 191, 8.6.2020, 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)

    8.6.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 191/19

    Action brought on 24 February 2020 — IN v EASME

    (Case T-119/20)

    (2020/C 191/26)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: IN (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

    Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    declare the present action admissible and well founded;

    —

    annul the decision of 15 April 2019, made by the Executive Directive of EASME in his capacity as the authority empowered to conclude contracts (‘AECE’), not to renew the applicant’s contract beyond the term thereof (30 April 2019);

    —

    annul the applicant’s appraisal for the year 2018, which was finalised on 3 June 2019;

    —

    if necessary, annul the decision of the AECE of 15 November 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

    —

    order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the damage suffered;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as well as infringement of the decision of 4 February 2019, ‘EASME Policy for Management of Employment Contracts’.

    2.

    Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

    3.

    Third plea, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

    4.

    Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legality, infringement of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time, and infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

    5.

    Fifth plea, concerning the application for annulment of the appraisal, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

    The applicant takes the view, moreover, that the illegalities set out in the pleas for annulment constitute the same number of failures on the part of the defendant. Consequently, he seeks compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested decisions.

    Top