Action brought on 5 April 2019 — BL and BM v Council and Others

(Case T-204/19)

(2019/C 206/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BL and BM (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service and Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

primarily,

—

with regard to the rights derived from the private law contract,

—	reclassify their contractual relationship as a contract of employment of indefinite duration;

—	find that there has been an infringement by the defendants of their contractual obligations and, in particular, of their obligation to give notice of termination of a contract of indefinite duration;

—

consequently, order the defendants to pay the applicants compensation in lieu of notice calculated on the basis of their respective length of service, namely:

—	for BL: the sum of EUR 48 424.65;

—	for BM: the sum of EUR 31 552.75;

—

rule that the dismissal of the applicants is unfair and, consequently, order the defendants to pay them compensation assessed ex aequo et bono at:

—	EUR 75 000 in respect of the damage suffered by BM;

—	EUR 90 000 in respect of the damage suffered by BL;

—

find that the defendants did not have the legal end of employment documents prepared and

—	order them to pay the applicants the sum of EUR 100 per day of non-payment with effect from the bringing of the present action;

—	order them to send to the applicants the end of employment documents

—	order the defendants to pay interest on the abovementioned sums, calculated at the Belgian statutory rate;

—

with regard to the other rights:

—

find that the applicants should have been recruited as temporary agents by one of the three defendants and declare that the three defendants treated the applicants in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, in respect of their salary, their pension rights and related benefits, and in respect of the guarantee of subsequent employment;

—	order the three defendants to compensate each of the applicants for loss of salary, pension, allowances and benefits, caused by the infringements of Community law referred to in this application;

—	order them to pay interest on those sums;

—

prescribe a period within which the parties are to determine that compensation, having regard to the grade and step in which the applicants ought to have been employed, the average progression of their salaries, the progress of their respective careers, the allowances which they thus ought to have received under those temporary agent contracts, and compare the results obtained with the salary actually received by the applicants;

—

in the alternative,

—

order the institutions to compensate the applicants, ex aequo et bono, for extra-contractual liability resulting from the failure to respect their fundamental rights:

—	EUR 105 000 in respect of BM;

—	EUR 30 000 in respect of BL;

—	order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely, in particular, on seven pleas in law in order to have their contracts of employment within the institutions reclassified as contracts of employment of indefinite duration and to obtain compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the decision to not renew their respective contracts, and due to the institutions choosing to apply a status to international contractual staff which does not respect their fundamental rights.

1.	First plea in law, alleging an abuse of rights by the defendants in the use of consecutive fixed-term contracts, and alleging infringement by the defendants of the principle of proportionality.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the applicants’ right to be heard.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging legal uncertainty caused to the applicants by the defendants and infringement by the defendants of the right to proper administration.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the principle that staff representatives should be consulted.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the right to freedom of movement for workers.

Furthermore the applicants allege that there is discrimination between workers within the institutions and, in particular, in the light of the rights granted to temporary agents, inter alia, the non-payment of various allowances, contribution to the pension scheme, reimbursement of costs and, potentially, 20 years’ service not being taken into account.