Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TA0320

Case T-320/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — WD v EFSA (Civil service — Temporary agents — Fixed term contract — Decision not to reclassify — Lack of staff reports — Carrying forward reclassification points — Manifest error of assessment — Non-renewal decision — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of power — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons — Right to a hearing — Liability)

IO C 95, 23.3.2020, 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)

23.3.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/23


Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — WD v EFSA

(Case T-320/18) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary agents - Fixed term contract - Decision not to reclassify - Lack of staff reports - Carrying forward reclassification points - Manifest error of assessment - Non-renewal decision - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of power - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons - Right to a hearing - Liability)

(2020/C 95/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and F. Volpi, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and C. Dekemexhe, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the EFSA’s decision of 14 July 2017 not to reclassify the applicant at Grade AST 6 in the 2017 reclassification exercise, the EFSA’s decision of 9 August 2017 not to renew her contract, and the decisions of 9 February and 12 March 2018 dismissing the complaints against those two decisions and, second, seeking compensation for the material and non-material damage the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

dismisses the application;

2.

orders WD to pay the costs.


(1)  OJ C 259, 23. 7. 2018.


Top