# C_2011013EN.01003902.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/39

---

Action brought on 23 September 2010 — AI v Court of Justice

(Case F-85/10)

()

2011/C 13/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AI (represented by: M. Erniquin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the deliberations of the Selection Board concerning the results of the French test in internal competition on the basis of tests No CJ 12/09 and, to the extent necessary, annulment of the contracts and appointments of the persons who passed that competition and, second, annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract, and application for compensation for damage.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the deliberations of the Selection Board relating to the French test in internal competition on the basis of tests No CJ 12/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the deliberations of the Selection Board relating to the French test in internal competition on the basis of tests No CJ 12/09;

| — | to the extent necessary, annulment of the appointments of the 8 candidates who passed that test; |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent necessary, annulment of the appointments of the 8 candidates who passed that test;

| — | communication of the assessment criteria on the basis of which the selection was made; |
| --- | --- |

—

communication of the assessment criteria on the basis of which the selection was made;

| — | principally, reclassification of the applicant’s fixed-term employment contract as a contract for an indefinite period, and therefore annulment of the decision not to renew her temporary staff contract of January 2009, and, consequently, her reinstatement as a member of the temporary staff; in the alternative, annulment of the decision not to renew her temporary staff contract of January 2009, and, therefore, her reinstatement as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, reclassification of the applicant’s fixed-term employment contract as a contract for an indefinite period, and therefore annulment of the decision not to renew her temporary staff contract of January 2009, and, consequently, her reinstatement as a member of the temporary staff; in the alternative, annulment of the decision not to renew her temporary staff contract of January 2009, and, therefore, her reinstatement as a member of the temporary staff;

| — | consequently, recognition of the entitlement to compensation corresponding to the difference between the remuneration which she would have received had the contract in question continued on 1 January 2010 and the emoluments which she in fact received as from that date until the date of her actual reinstatement; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, recognition of the entitlement to compensation corresponding to the difference between the remuneration which she would have received had the contract in question continued on 1 January 2010 and the emoluments which she in fact received as from that date until the date of her actual reinstatement;

| — | payment of compensation for the non-material damage suffered in particular as a result of the wrongful failure to renew her contract of employment, assessed at EUR 100 000 should the applicant’s reinstatement be ordered, or alternatively compensation of EUR 500 000 should it prove impossible to reinstate the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

payment of compensation for the non-material damage suffered in particular as a result of the wrongful failure to renew her contract of employment, assessed at EUR 100 000 should the applicant’s reinstatement be ordered, or alternatively compensation of EUR 500 000 should it prove impossible to reinstate the applicant;

| — | an order that the Court of Justice should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Court of Justice should pay the costs.

---