do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-116/18: Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Darmanin v EASO
Date: 2018-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, probationary period, proof, servant (EU), staff assessment, unfair dismissal








C_2018152EN.01004401.xml










30.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 152/44





Action brought on 27 February 2018 — Darmanin v EASO
(Case T-116/18)
(2018/C 152/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Joanna Darmanin (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: N. De Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts (Executive Director) of 27 June 2017 by which the applicant was dismissed at the end of the probation period, from 15 July 2017;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the express decision rejecting the complaint of 29 January 2018;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’) and of the Guide applicable to the procedure for appraising trainees at the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the decision of the Management Board of EASO of 18 January 2016 implementing Articles 43 and 44 of the Staff Regulations for temporary staff.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Decision No 11 of the Management Board of EASO of 4 July 2012 on middle management staff.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of good administration and legal certainty.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, a plea of illegality due to infringement of the principle of equal treatment and infringement of the effective right to be heard.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to implement an appraisal procedure that is lawful, equitable and predictable.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the rules concerning the burden of proof.