# C_2020201EN.01003702.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/37

---

Action brought on 27 March 2020 — JF v EUCAP Somalia

(Case T-194/20)

(2020/C 201/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JF (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer)

Defendant: EUCAP Somalia (Mogadishu, Somalia)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims, on the basis of an action for annulment (Article 263 TFEU) and an action for damages for non-contractual liability (Article 268 TFEU and Article 340(2) TFEU), that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Head of Mission of EUCAP Somalia of 18 January 2020 terminating the applicant’s employment; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of Mission of EUCAP Somalia of 18 January 2020 terminating the applicant’s employment;

| — | annul the decision of the Head of Mission of EUCAP Somalia of 31 January 2020, rejecting the applicant’s internal appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of Mission of EUCAP Somalia of 31 January 2020, rejecting the applicant’s internal appeal;

| — | on the basis of non-contractual liability, order EUCAP Somalia to pay the applicant compensation for the material harm in the form of salaries, emoluments, and entitlements (lost earnings) during the transition period, as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement concluded between the European Union and the United Kingdom (EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement); |
| --- | --- |

—

on the basis of non-contractual liability, order EUCAP Somalia to pay the applicant compensation for the material harm in the form of salaries, emoluments, and entitlements (lost earnings) during the transition period, as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement concluded between the European Union and the United Kingdom (EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement);

| — | order EUCAP Somalia to compensate the applicant for the material and immaterial harm suffered as a result of the unlawful Decisions, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 60,000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUCAP Somalia to compensate the applicant for the material and immaterial harm suffered as a result of the unlawful Decisions, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 60,000;

| — | order EUCAP Somalia to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant, together with interest of 8 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUCAP Somalia to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant, together with interest of 8 %.

In the alternative, the applicant claims, on the basis of an action pursuant to the arbitration clause (Article 272 TFEU) (if the two contested decisions are held to inseparable from the applicant’s employment contract) and an action for damages for contractual liability (Article 340(1) TFEU), that the Court should:

| — | declare that the decisions of the Head of Mission of EUCAP Somalia of 18 January 2020 and of 31 January 2020 are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the decisions of the Head of Mission of EUCAP Somalia of 18 January 2020 and of 31 January 2020 are unlawful;

| — | on the basis of contractual liability, order EUCAP Somalia to pay the applicant compensation for the material and immaterial harm suffered as above; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the basis of contractual liability, order EUCAP Somalia to pay the applicant compensation for the material and immaterial harm suffered as above;

| — | order EUCAP Somalia to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant, together with interest of 8 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUCAP Somalia to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant, together with interest of 8 %.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant relies on five pleas in law the applicant.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement by EUCAP Somalia of the right to be heard, in that the applicant was not heard before the decision of 18 January 2020 to terminate his contract was taken. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement by EUCAP Somalia of the prohibition of direct discrimination on grounds of nationality, in that the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract relies on the entry into force of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, despite the existence of a transition period, unlawfully treating British and non-British contract staff in EUCAP Somalia differently. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an infringement by EUCAP Somalia of the principle of equal treatment, in that EUCAP Somalia treated the applicant differently from internationally contracted staff of British nationality employed in other CSDP missions, who were retained during the transition period in accordance with the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement by EUCAP Somalia of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, in that EUCAP Somalia ignored that the provisions on CSDP missions towards internationally contracted staff of British nationality continue to apply and do not limit the continued employment of such staff during the transition period. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement by EUCAP Somalia of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that assurances were made to internationally contracted staff of British nationality that they would be retained during the transition period, in line with the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement.
  In addition, should the Court find the action under Article 263 TFEU inadmissible, because the decisions are held to be inseparable from the applicant’s employment contract, the General Court is asked, in support of the action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, which is brought in the alternative, to rely on the same five pleas of law. The alleged infringements should be regarded as of a contractual nature. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In addition, should the Court find the action under Article 263 TFEU inadmissible, because the decisions are held to be inseparable from the applicant’s employment contract, the General Court is asked, in support of the action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, which is brought in the alternative, to rely on the same five pleas of law. The alleged infringements should be regarded as of a contractual nature.

---