# C_2020095EN.01003701.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/37

---

Action brought on 16 January 2020 — ID v EEAS

(Case T-28/20)

(2020/C 95/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ID (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare her application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare her application admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 449 397,05, in compensation for the material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 449 397,05, in compensation for the material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 20 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 20 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and,

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

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 breach of Article 84 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS):






  — | on the elements in relation to which a finding of inadequacy must be made to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 84 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS):

—

on the elements in relation to which a finding of inadequacy must be made to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period;

| — | on the level of inadequacy that must be met to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period. |
| --- | --- |

—

on the level of inadequacy that must be met to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment:






  — | on the failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment:

—

on the failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment;

| — | on the assessment of the facts capable of supporting a finding of obvious inadequacy. |
| --- | --- |

—

on the assessment of the facts capable of supporting a finding of obvious inadequacy.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

---