Case T-742/15 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2015 by DD against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases F-106/13 and F-25/14 DD v FRA
Date: 2015-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, disciplinary proceedings, indemnification, right to justice, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), termination of employment, work contract








C_2016111EN.01002602.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/26





Appeal brought on 16 December 2015 by DD against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases F-106/13 and F-25/14 DD v FRA
(Case T-742/15 P)
(2016/C 111/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: DD (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


partly set aside the judgment in joint cases F-106/13 and F-25/14 of 8 October 2015;










—


consequently:






—


annul both decisions of the FRA (the contested reprimand and termination of contract) not just on grounds of procedure, but also on the other grounds raised in the pleas submitted in the application at first instance;










—


grant the appellant an adequate compensation for the moral damage caused by the gross illegality and irregularity of the administrative inquiry and of the decision to issue a reprimand. This moral damage is assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;










—


grant the appellant an adequate compensation for the moral damage caused by the irregular procedure and decision of termination of contract. This moral damage is assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000;














—


order the FRA to pay all costs related to this appeal





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed errors of law when examining only the procedural plea of absence of hearing which led to the annulment of both the decision of reprimand and of termination of contract, and refusing to examine all other pleas submitted in the application at first instance. The appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law and an incomplete examination of the facts, a violation of Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights and a violation of the duty to state reasons, a violation of the principle of a good administration of justice, a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and a manifest error of assessment.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed errors of law when rejecting the appellant’s claims for non-material damages both with regard to the decision of reprimand and the decision of termination of contract.






—


The Civil Service Tribunal committed errors of law regarding the rejection of the claim for non-material prejudice caused by the administrative inquiry, a distortion of evidence, an incomplete examination of facts, a manifest error of assessment, a violation of the notion of proof with respect to the existence of a damage as a condition for non-contractual liability, a misapplication of the principle of the rights of the defence and of Article 86(2) of the EU Staff Regulations, a violation of the duty to state reasons, a violation of the principle of legitimate expectation and a violation of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC (1).










—


The Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law regarding the rejection of the claim for non-material prejudice caused by the decision of reprimand, a distortion of evidence, a manifest error of assessment, an incomplete examination of facts, a legal error in the assessment of the prejudice, a violation of the duty to state reasons, and a violation of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC.










—


The Civil Service Tribunal committed an error of law regarding the rejection of the claim for non-material prejudice caused by the termination decision, a distortion of evidence, an incomplete examination of the facts, a manifest error of assessment, a legal error in the assessment of the prejudice, a violation of the duty to state reasons, a violation of legitimate expectation, and a violation of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC.










(1)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).