# C_2017249EN.01003102.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/31

---

Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Hebberecht v EEAS

(Case T-315/17)

(2017/C 249/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chantal Hebberecht (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | primarily:






  — | declare the action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

primarily:

—

declare the action admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the European External Action Service (EEAS) (Ares (2017) 615970 — 03/02/2017) concerning the refusal of the one-year extension of Ms Hebberecht’s mission as Head of the EU delegation to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the European External Action Service (EEAS) (Ares (2017) 615970 — 03/02/2017) concerning the refusal of the one-year extension of Ms Hebberecht’s mission as Head of the EU delegation to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia;

| — | order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 250 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 250 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

| — | in the alternative:






  — | order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 200 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the alternative:

—

order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 200 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

| — | in the further alternative:






  — | order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 150 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative:

—

order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 150 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

| — | in the further alternative:






  — | order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 100 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative:

—

order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 100 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

| — | in the further alternative:






  — | order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 50 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative:

—

order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a lump sum of EUR 50 000 as compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

| — | Order the EEAS to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EEAS to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch as the applicant considers that the decision not to extend her mission as Head of Delegation of the European Union (‘EU’) to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (‘Ethiopia’) appears to be directly related to a wave of anti-Semitic attacks and discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, inasmuch as the applicant considers that the decision not to extend her mission as Head of Delegation of the European Union (‘EU’) to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (‘Ethiopia’) appears to be directly related to a wave of anti-Semitic attacks and discrimination.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the interests of the service, as the applicant’s extension would have been justified on the basis of several factors taking account of the interests of the service, such as:






  — | retaining an efficiently managed and organised delegation, with qualified, motivated staff performing their tasks under the leadership of an experienced head of delegation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the interests of the service, as the applicant’s extension would have been justified on the basis of several factors taking account of the interests of the service, such as:

—

retaining an efficiently managed and organised delegation, with qualified, motivated staff performing their tasks under the leadership of an experienced head of delegation;

| — | retaining a head of delegation with 28 years of experience in diplomatic, political and economic relations and cooperation in a country which has the status of extraordinary partner of the EU, namely Ethiopia; |
| --- | --- |

—

retaining a head of delegation with 28 years of experience in diplomatic, political and economic relations and cooperation in a country which has the status of extraordinary partner of the EU, namely Ethiopia;

| — | contributing to safeguarding the stability of the country and preventing its fragmentation through the outbreak of a civil war; |
| --- | --- |

—

contributing to safeguarding the stability of the country and preventing its fragmentation through the outbreak of a civil war;

| — | contributing to halting the current flow of migration and preventing its increase. |
| --- | --- |

—

contributing to halting the current flow of migration and preventing its increase.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since other officials in a position identical to that of the applicant were extended on the basis of grounds which are themselves identical to those put forward by the applicant in her application for a one-year extension. In that context, the applicant also raises non-compliance with positive discrimination measures laid down in the Staff Regulations designed to achieve gender balance, this argument being supported by the fact that the new head of delegation appointed to replace her is a man. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since other officials in a position identical to that of the applicant were extended on the basis of grounds which are themselves identical to those put forward by the applicant in her application for a one-year extension. In that context, the applicant also raises non-compliance with positive discrimination measures laid down in the Staff Regulations designed to achieve gender balance, this argument being supported by the fact that the new head of delegation appointed to replace her is a man.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of continuity of service, which is an essential criterion for the extension decision, in that five other individuals are also leaving, including the head of cooperation and the head of the rural development and food safety division, these being two key posts for cooperation and development. The applicant therefore maintains that, in those circumstances, her one-year extension as head of delegation would ensure continuity of service and the training of incoming colleagues. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of continuity of service, which is an essential criterion for the extension decision, in that five other individuals are also leaving, including the head of cooperation and the head of the rural development and food safety division, these being two key posts for cooperation and development. The applicant therefore maintains that, in those circumstances, her one-year extension as head of delegation would ensure continuity of service and the training of incoming colleagues.

---