This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TA0200
Case T-200/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — SB v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Plea of illegality — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Discrimination on grounds of age)
Case T-200/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — SB v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Plea of illegality — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Discrimination on grounds of age)
Case T-200/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — SB v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Plea of illegality — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Discrimination on grounds of age)
IO C 221, 25.6.2018, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case T-200/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — SB v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Plea of illegality — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Discrimination on grounds of age)
Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 — SB v EUIPO
(Case T-200/17) ( 1 )
‛(Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Plea of illegality — Duty to state reasons — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Discrimination on grounds of age)’
2018/C 221/27Language of the case: EnglishParties
Applicant: SB (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Tóth and A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO dated 2 June 2016 refusing a second renewal of the applicant’s contract and that director’s decision dated 19 December 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders SB to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.