—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

—

annulment of the decision of EESC of 8 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request for career reconstitution and, if necessary, the annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the complaint of 8 November 2020;

—

EESC to pay remuneration arrears and derived financial benefits, together with late payment interest fixed at the European Central Bank rate increased by 2 points;

—

EESC to pay EUR 2 000 for non-material harm;

—

the defendant to pay all the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural guarantees set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant claims that the way in which the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) takes decisions regarding the promotion or reclassification of temporary agents of groups secretariats adversely affects the procedural guarantees of Article 41 of the Charter. This is true of all the decisions not to promote or reclassify the applicant since her entry into service. The applicant states that, first, those decisions lack any reasoning and, second, no legislation, general decision or communication indicates which criteria are accepted and applied to identify who amongst the temporary agents will be promoted or reclassified.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty. The applicant considers in this respect that although EESC has discretion to fix the criteria and rules for the application of Article 10 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, those criteria and rules must, however, guarantee the degree of predictability required by EU law. It is clear that this not the case since there exist no criteria, in particular clear and transparent criteria, allowing temporary agents to know how and under which conditions a promotion or reclassification will occur entailing the conclusion of a supplementary agreement.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, on the ground that the decision to reclassify the applicant only on three occasions since 2004 is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, even if it was necessary to take into account the criteria stemming from the alleged consistent practice applicable within EESC.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant claims that her interests were not taken into account when the authority empowered to conclude contracts decided which agents would be promoted or reclassified, and this being so since her entry into service.