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 62016TN0833

    Case T-833/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Karp v Parliament

    IO C 46, 13.2.2017, 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)

    13.2.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 46/19

    Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Karp v Parliament

    (Case T-833/16)

    (2017/C 046/22)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers, and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Parliament

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment for the EFDD Group within the European Parliament which classified the applicant in function group I within the scope of the accredited parliamentary assistant (APA) contract signed on 25 February 2015 and in function group II within the scope of the contract of employment signed on 12 May 2016;

    —

    order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered, estimated provisionally to be EUR 40 888,68 and EUR 63 323,20, respectively;

    —

    order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 80 of the CESO Staff Regulations

    —

    The applicant was given a salary grade corresponding to function group I for his first contract and at the bottom of function group II for the second employment contract he was offered. The function group II involves ‘Clerical and secretarial tasks, office management and other equivalent tasks, performed under the supervision of officials or temporary staff’ while the vast majority of tasks entrusted to the applicant within the scope of his first and his second employment contracts were administrative and advisory tasks as demonstrated in the annexes to the application.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 82 of the CEOS Staff Regulations

    —

    Article 82 of the CEOS staff regulations states that a contract staff member shall be recruited in function group IV if he can demonstrate a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma or professional training of an equivalent level. The applicant has five years of university studies attested by two diplomas and, in addition, regarding the second contract he was offered, has a previous work experience for the European Parliament involving tasks equivalent to the tasks he ended up performing.
    Top