# C_2021098EN.01003302.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/33

---

Action brought on 3 February 2021 — Bowden and Young v Europol

(Case T-72/21)

(2021/C 98/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ian James Bowden (The Hague, Netherlands) and Janey Young (The Hague) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the individual decisions of 30 March 2020 not to grant them an exception from the condition of nationality laid down in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS and, consequently, to terminate their respective contracts on the basis of Article 47 of the CEOS with notice to take effect ‘following the expiry of the Transition Period’, namely on 31 December 2020 according to the Withdrawal Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the individual decisions of 30 March 2020 not to grant them an exception from the condition of nationality laid down in Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS and, consequently, to terminate their respective contracts on the basis of Article 47 of the CEOS with notice to take effect ‘following the expiry of the Transition Period’, namely on 31 December 2020 according to the Withdrawal Agreement;

| — | 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 applicants rely on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging illegality of the procedure and the criteria applied, an error of law and an error of interpretation, a lack of transparency, clarity, legal certainty, predictability and a failure to comply with the duty of sound administration in the adoption of a derogation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality of the procedure and the criteria applied, an error of law and an error of interpretation, a lack of transparency, clarity, legal certainty, predictability and a failure to comply with the duty of sound administration in the adoption of a derogation procedure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, a lack of individual and detailed examination of the case file, arbitrary decision-making, abuse of process and a failure to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, a lack of individual and detailed examination of the case file, arbitrary decision-making, abuse of process and a failure to state reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and prohibition of discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and prohibition of discrimination.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

---