EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0200
Case T-200/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO
Case T-200/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO
Case T-200/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO
IO C 178, 6.6.2017, p. 29–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
6.6.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 178/29 |
Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO
(Case T-200/17)
(2017/C 178/42)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: SB (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the decision of the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2016 by which the applicant was refused a second renewal of her contract and against the rejection by the Executive Director of EUIPO of 19 December 2016 of the applicant’s complaint of 1 September 2016; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging the breach of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Union as a result of the application of the defendant’s internal rules which equate officials and temporary agents with indefinite contracts. Moreover, by differentiating between temporary agents with fixed-term contracts and temporary agents with contracts concluded for an indefinite period, the defendant infringes the Staff Regulations and, in the case at hand, the principle of equal treatment. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging the lack of reasoning or illegal, contradictory and insufficient reasoning. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging failure to respect the duty of care owed to staff. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on the grounds of age as a result of the application by the defendant of a staff policy aimed at reducing the average age of the staff population. |