EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62005TN0180
Case T-180/05: Action brought on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren against the European Training Foundation
Case T-180/05: Action brought on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren against the European Training Foundation
Case T-180/05: Action brought on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren against the European Training Foundation
IO C 182, 23.7.2005, p. 39–40
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.7.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 182/39 |
Action brought on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren against the European Training Foundation
(Case T-180/05)
(2005/C 182/73)
Language of the case: French
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren, Turin (Italy), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
1. |
annul the decision of 25 June 2004 of the former Director of the Foundation dismissing the applicant; |
|
2. |
annul, if necessary, the decision of 19 January 2005 of the Director of Training rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 27 September against the first decision; |
|
3. |
order the Foundation to pay, in compensation for the material damage caused to her by the unlawfulness of the contested decisions, a sum equivalent to the salary and pension she would have received if she had been able to continue her career at the Foundation until the age of 65, reduced by the amount of the allowances for dismissal and unemployment and the pension she has received or will receive because of her dismissal; |
|
4. |
order the Foundation to pay the applicant a sum at the Court's discretion to make good the non-material damage caused to her by the unlawfulness of the contested decision; |
|
5. |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
According to the applicant, the Foundation has not established that the decision to dismiss the applicant is based on a valid ground in law, particularly as that decision is in apparent contradiction with the applicant's staff report for 2003.
The applicant also claims that the real reason for her dismissal is manifestly unlawful and contrary to the interest of the service because it is based on a prior agreement that she would leave the Foundation after 31 December 2003.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the ground for the contested decision is unlawful and arbitrary if the refusal of the Head of Department to retain her is based on adverse assessments made of her in the past.
Finally, the applicant raises pleas of failure to state reasons, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the right to be heard and manifest errors of assessment, if the refusal of the Head of Department and/or the dismissal are based on professional failings within the EECA department or generally.