# C_2018112EN.01003801.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/38 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 25 January 2018 — VF v ECB

(Case T-39/18)

(2018/C 112/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal admissible and founded; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the applicant’s reviewed 2016 appraisal and annual salary and bonus review (‘ASBR’) dated 24 May 2017 notified on the same day; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the ECB decision dated 13 September 2017 rejecting his request for an administrative review of his reviewed 2016 appraisal and ASBR; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | annul the ECB decision dated 20 December 2017 and notified to the applicant on 21 December 2017 rejecting his grievance procedure against his reviewed 2016 appraisal and ASBR; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the decision of non-conversion of the applicant’s contract, dated 6 March 2017; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the ECB decision dated 4 July 2017 rejecting his request for an administrative review of the decision of non-conversion of his contract; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | annul the ECB decision dated 15 November 2017 and notified to him on 21 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s grievance procedure against the non-conversion of his contract; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to compensate the material and moral prejudices suffered by the applicant; and |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following arguments.

| 1. | As to the non-conversion decision:
—
Plea of illegality of the Conversion Policy: violation of article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank (‘CoE’) and of article 2.0 of the Staff Regulations (‘SR’) and violation of the hierarchy of norms. —
Plea of illegality: article 10(c) CoE and article 2.0 SR are in breach of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999( 1 ) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and Recital 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. —
The non-conversion decision was taken on the basis of illegal appraisal and ASBR decisions. | — | Plea of illegality of the Conversion Policy: violation of article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank (‘CoE’) and of article 2.0 of the Staff Regulations (‘SR’) and violation of the hierarchy of norms. | — | Plea of illegality: article 10(c) CoE and article 2.0 SR are in breach of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999( 1 ) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and Recital 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. | — | The non-conversion decision was taken on the basis of illegal appraisal and ASBR decisions. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Plea of illegality of the Conversion Policy: violation of article 10(c) of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank (‘CoE’) and of article 2.0 of the Staff Regulations (‘SR’) and violation of the hierarchy of norms. | | | | | | |
| — | Plea of illegality: article 10(c) CoE and article 2.0 SR are in breach of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999( 1 ) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP and Recital 6 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. | | | | | | |
| — | The non-conversion decision was taken on the basis of illegal appraisal and ASBR decisions. | | | | | | |

| 2. | As to the appraisal:
—
Procedural irregularity and absence of dialogue. —
Violation of the duty to state reason, violation of the principle of good administration and of due care and lack of information. —
Manifest errors of appreciation. | — | Procedural irregularity and absence of dialogue. | — | Violation of the duty to state reason, violation of the principle of good administration and of due care and lack of information. | — | Manifest errors of appreciation. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------ | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------- |
| — | Procedural irregularity and absence of dialogue. | | | | | | |
| — | Violation of the duty to state reason, violation of the principle of good administration and of due care and lack of information. | | | | | | |
| — | Manifest errors of appreciation. | | | | | | |

| 3. | As to the ASBR decision:
—
Plea of illegality of the ASBR Guidelines, violation of the duty to state reasons and violation of the principle of legal certainty. —
Lack of due explanation regarding the background of the applicant’s salary award, lack of transparency and violation of the duty to state reason. —
Manifest error of appreciation. | — | Plea of illegality of the ASBR Guidelines, violation of the duty to state reasons and violation of the principle of legal certainty. | — | Lack of due explanation regarding the background of the applicant’s salary award, lack of transparency and violation of the duty to state reason. | — | Manifest error of appreciation. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------- |
| — | Plea of illegality of the ASBR Guidelines, violation of the duty to state reasons and violation of the principle of legal certainty. | | | | | | |
| — | Lack of due explanation regarding the background of the applicant’s salary award, lack of transparency and violation of the duty to state reason. | | | | | | |
| — | Manifest error of appreciation. | | | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999, L 175, p. 43).

---