# C_2019383EN.01007401.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/74

---

Action brought on 24 September 2019 — FD v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy

(Case T-641/19)

(2019/C 383/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FD (represented by M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

and accordingly:

| — | annul the decision of 3 December 2018 which was confirmed by the rejection decision of 14 June 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 3 December 2018 which was confirmed by the rejection decision of 14 June 2019;

| — | order the payment of compensation in respect of the material damage suffered, which amounts to EUR 75 500, together with compensation in respect of the non-material damage, estimated in the amount of EUR 30 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation in respect of the material damage suffered, which amounts to EUR 75 500, together with compensation in respect of the non-material damage, estimated in the amount of EUR 30 000;

| — | order the defendant to bear the entirety of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the entirety of 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 error of assessment, misuse of powers and acts of harassment committed against him. The applicant criticises, inter alia, the justification for the non-renewal of his contact, which was based on the elimination of his post following the reorganisation of the department. According to the applicant, that statement of reasons is vitiated by an error in so far as the reorganisation plans did not make provision for the elimination of a post corresponding to the characteristics of that occupied by the applicant. Moreover, he takes the view that he was the victim of psychological harassment and that the consequences of that harassment served to substantiate the decision not to renew his contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging error of assessment, misuse of powers and acts of harassment committed against him. The applicant criticises, inter alia, the justification for the non-renewal of his contact, which was based on the elimination of his post following the reorganisation of the department. According to the applicant, that statement of reasons is vitiated by an error in so far as the reorganisation plans did not make provision for the elimination of a post corresponding to the characteristics of that occupied by the applicant. Moreover, he takes the view that he was the victim of psychological harassment and that the consequences of that harassment served to substantiate the decision not to renew his contract.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, the duty of care and Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. In that connection, the applicant submits, inter alia, that, in the contested decision, the defendant failed to take account of his competencies, efficiency, conduct in the service, family situation and seniority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, the duty of care and Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. In that connection, the applicant submits, inter alia, that, in the contested decision, the defendant failed to take account of his competencies, efficiency, conduct in the service, family situation and seniority.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The applicant claims that the decision not to renew his contract was based on budgetary and organisational reasons. However, it was possible for the contracts of other members of staff, whose factual and legal situations presented no essential difference with those of the applicant, to be renewed despite that context. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The applicant claims that the decision not to renew his contract was based on budgetary and organisational reasons. However, it was possible for the contracts of other members of staff, whose factual and legal situations presented no essential difference with those of the applicant, to be renewed despite that context.

---