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 62016TN0692

Case T-692/16: Action brought on 27 September 2016 — CJ v ECDC

OJ C 441, 28.11.2016, p. 26–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.11.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/26

Action brought on 27 September 2016 — CJ v ECDC

(Case T-692/16)

(2016/C 441/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision and consequently order the ECDC to pay the applicant all emoluments he would have received from 1 May 2012 until 31 December 2014 had the applicant stayed in ECDC’s service, which, pending specification by the ECDC, the applicant provisionally calculates as the sum of EUR 140 000, plus default interest at the statutory rate;

—

order the ECDC to pay him the sum of EUR 13 000 in compensation for non-material harm;

—

order the ECDC to bear its own costs, and to pay his costs, in the proceedings.

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 that the ECDC breached Article 266 TFEU by incorrectly implementing the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12 CJ v ECDC, and arguing in particular

—

that, due to the irrevocable change in essential circumstances the ECDC was wrong to give retroactive effect to the contested decision;

—

that the ECDC breached the principle of proportionality, as the contested decision was neither suitable nor necessary for the achievement of the objective pursued by the annulled 2012 dismissal;

—

that the ECDC committed a manifest error of assessment in disregarding the recruitment fraud of the head of the ECDC legal service;

—

that the ECDC breached Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations in dismissing the applicant in reaction to his reporting, in tempore non suspecto shortly before his dismissal, facts which raised the suspicion of financial mismanagement at the ECDC.

2.

Second plea in law, claiming monetary compensation for non-material harm caused by the ECDC’s breach of Article 266 TFEU and by its statement that the applicant has sought to promote nepotism.
Top