# C_2012200EN.01002102.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/21

---

Action brought on 10th April 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-45/12)

2012/C 200/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Visan, Lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Commission's decision not to renew the Staff contract of the Applicant.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of 27-28.07.2011 of the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova not to renew the employment contract of the applicant and, annul European Commission DG.HR.D.2's Decision dated 16.01.2011 to applicant's Complaint no. Rl687/11 filed under article 90(2). |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of 27-28.07.2011 of the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova not to renew the employment contract of the applicant and, annul European Commission DG.HR.D.2's Decision dated 16.01.2011 to applicant's Complaint no. Rl687/11 filed under article 90(2).

| — | Order the European Commission to reintegrate the Applicant in another EU Delegation so that the Applicant maintains the rights obtained during the performance of the employment contract from 2008 to 2011 in the EU Delegation to Moldova [probation period passed; salary step appraisal points accumulated], and ensure that the new post will be compatible with the EPSO/CAST contest profile that the Applicant has passed in 2007. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to reintegrate the Applicant in another EU Delegation so that the Applicant maintains the rights obtained during the performance of the employment contract from 2008 to 2011 in the EU Delegation to Moldova [probation period passed; salary step appraisal points accumulated], and ensure that the new post will be compatible with the EPSO/CAST contest profile that the Applicant has passed in 2007.

| — | Order the Defendant to make a Public acknowledgement of the error made by the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova at the moment they offered the ‘Charge de Mission Adjoint’ post to the Applicant — an error that has led to the impossibility of ensuring article 4-paragraph 2/renewal clause since day-1 of contract, to the under-positioning of the Applicant and the assignment of tasks inferior to the Job of the Applicant's Description from 2008 until 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to make a Public acknowledgement of the error made by the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova at the moment they offered the ‘Charge de Mission Adjoint’ post to the Applicant — an error that has led to the impossibility of ensuring article 4-paragraph 2/renewal clause since day-1 of contract, to the under-positioning of the Applicant and the assignment of tasks inferior to the Job of the Applicant's Description from 2008 until 2011;

| — | Order the Defendant to pay of damages for the moral prejudice caused from 2008 until 2011 by the irregularities mentioned above. Damages are to be calculated on a monthly basis as the salary difference between the Applicant and the Local Agent for the entire 2008-2011 period -the reasoning being that the Delegation (a) had willingly assigned to the Applicant identical tasks as given to the Local Agent despite of very different Job Descriptions, (b) had done its utmost to keep the Applicant from performing tasks/undertaking the correct position according to the Job Description, (c) constantly denied that Applicant's post involved deputing to the Head of the FCA. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to pay of damages for the moral prejudice caused from 2008 until 2011 by the irregularities mentioned above. Damages are to be calculated on a monthly basis as the salary difference between the Applicant and the Local Agent for the entire 2008-2011 period -the reasoning being that the Delegation (a) had willingly assigned to the Applicant identical tasks as given to the Local Agent despite of very different Job Descriptions, (b) had done its utmost to keep the Applicant from performing tasks/undertaking the correct position according to the Job Description, (c) constantly denied that Applicant's post involved deputing to the Head of the FCA.

| — | Order the Defendant to pay the damages for the period ‘10.11.2011 — until the reintegration into another EU Delegation — EU Institution’ for the material and non-material losses suffered by the Applicant following the Decision of 27-28.07.2011 of the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova not to renew the Applicant's agent contract category 3a). Damages are to be calculated on the basis of the monthly salary of the Applicant for the entire period 10.11.2011- until reintegration into work. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to pay the damages for the period ‘10.11.2011 — until the reintegration into another EU Delegation — EU Institution’ for the material and non-material losses suffered by the Applicant following the Decision of 27-28.07.2011 of the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova not to renew the Applicant's agent contract category 3a). Damages are to be calculated on the basis of the monthly salary of the Applicant for the entire period 10.11.2011- until reintegration into work.

| — | Order the European Commission to pay for all expenses generated with this trial. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay for all expenses generated with this trial.

---