Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TN0255

Case T-255/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — US v ECB

OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 33–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201806150771955392018/C 231/422552018TC23120180702EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180423333421

Case T-255/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — US v ECB

Top

C2312018EN3310120180423EN0042331342

Action brought on 23 April 2018 — US v ECB

(Case T-255/18)

2018/C 231/42Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

consequently:

annul the decision not to convert the applicant’s contract, dated 13 June 2017;

annul the decision of the ECB of 11 October 2017 rejecting the applicant’s application for administrative review of 11 August 2017;

annul the decision of the ECB of 13 February 2018, served on the applicant the same day, rejecting his grievance procedure instituted on 7 December 2017;

award damages in respect of the losses suffered;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality as regards the conversion policy, since that policy infringes Article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment and Article 2.0 of the Staff Rules and was adopted contrary to the hierarchy of norms.

2.

Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality, in that Article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment and Article 2.0 of the Staff Rules infringe Council Directive [1999]/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and recital 6 of the ETUC, UNICE and CEEP framework agreement on fixed-term work.

3.

Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality of the Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) Guidelines, in that those guidelines infringe the obligation to state reasons and the principle of legal certainty.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and infringement of the obligation to state reasons as regards, firstly, the salary steps awarded to the applicant; secondly, his ‘continuous development’ and, thirdly, the maintenance of the business needs for the applicant’s knowledge, aptitudes and specific skills.

Top