# C_2021357EN.01003201.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/32

---

Action brought on 15 July 2021 — TL v Commission

(Case T-438/21)

(2021/C 357/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 29 October 2020 not to extend the applicant’s employment contract (the ‘non-renewal decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 29 October 2020 not to extend the applicant’s employment contract (the ‘non-renewal decision’);

| — | together with, and so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 May 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of 29 October 2020 (the ‘contested decision’); |
| --- | --- |

—

together with, and so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 May 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of 29 October 2020 (the ‘contested decision’);

| — | annul the defendant’s vacancy notice of 2 October 2020, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to the ones the applicant was already performing; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s vacancy notice of 2 October 2020, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to the ones the applicant was already performing;

| — | order the payment of compensation amounting to 90 % of the applicant’s gross salaries, including pension contributions, for the loss of serious chance of having the existing employment contract renewed and order the payment of a compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation amounting to 90 % of the applicant’s gross salaries, including pension contributions, for the loss of serious chance of having the existing employment contract renewed and order the payment of a compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment since the reasons given in the ‘contested decision’ and in the ‘non renewal decision’ of the applicant’s employment contract are not well founded. Furthermore, it is argued that the files on which the applicant has mainly worked have not become less prominent and that the unit staff needs have not diminished, contrary to what the defendant alleges. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment since the reasons given in the ‘contested decision’ and in the ‘non renewal decision’ of the applicant’s employment contract are not well founded. Furthermore, it is argued that the files on which the applicant has mainly worked have not become less prominent and that the unit staff needs have not diminished, contrary to what the defendant alleges.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its duty of care because there has been no balance between the interest of the service and the interest of the staff member. It is also argued that the defendant has not taken other elements contained in the file of the applicant (i.e., harassment) into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its duty of care because there has been no balance between the interest of the service and the interest of the staff member. It is also argued that the defendant has not taken other elements contained in the file of the applicant (i.e., harassment) into consideration.

---