Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62019TN0031

Case T-31/19: Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA

IO C 103, 18.3.2019, p. 50–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.3.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/50

Action brought on 15 January 2019 — AF v FRA

(Case T-31/19)

(2019/C 103/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AF (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 9 May 2018 drawing up a list of eligible temporary agents proposed for the 2017 reclassification exercise where the name of the applicant was not included;

—

if need be, annul also the FRA’s decision received by the applicant on 5 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the FRA’s said decision;

—

order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered by the applicant;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) as well as of Article 30 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the FRA’s Executive Board Decision No 2016/01 laying down general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the CEOS.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that there has been a violation of the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
Top