# C_2020036EN.01003702.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/37

---

Action brought on 2 December 2019 — RY v Commission

(Case T-824/19)

(2020/C 36/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RY (represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 10 April 2019 to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff pursuant to Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘CEOS’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 10 April 2019 to terminate the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff pursuant to Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘CEOS’);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission ought to have reinstated him further to the judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU. The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission ought to have reinstated him further to the judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, in that the applicant was not able to submit his comments effectively and influence the decision-making process in question. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, in that the applicant was not able to submit his comments effectively and influence the decision-making process in question.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power, on the ground that the contested decision was taken for the sole purpose of giving a semblance of lawfulness to the purely confirmatory decision to terminate the applicant’s contract. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power, on the ground that the contested decision was taken for the sole purpose of giving a semblance of lawfulness to the purely confirmatory decision to terminate the applicant’s contract.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to the file. The applicant claims in that respect that no follow-up was given to his repeated requests that he be sent the documents exchanged between the office of the Commission member concerned and the Directorate General for Human Resources and Security further to the judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1) |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to the file. The applicant claims in that respect that no follow-up was given to his repeated requests that he be sent the documents exchanged between the office of the Commission member concerned and the Directorate General for Human Resources and Security further to the judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1)

---