Case T-181/19: Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, equal treatment, framework agreement, full-time employment, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2019206EN.01004701.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/47






Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO
(Case T-181/19)
(2019/C 206/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul EUIPO’s decisions notified by letter of 4 June 2018 refusing the applicant’s applications made by letter of 25 January 2018 seeking:






i.


removal of the termination clause in Article 5 of the applicant’s contract, reclassification of her contract as a contract of indefinite duration under Article 2(f) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (‘CEOS’) and, to the extent necessary for the above, the withdrawal of the decision of 14 December 2017; and










ii.


a second renewal of her contract under Article 2(f) CEOS beyond 30 June 2018 (or, as the end date of the contract was pushed back on account of the applicant’s ill health, beyond 30 September 2018) or, as a minimum, however, inclusion of the applicant in the procedure for a second renewal of the contracts of temporary agents under Article 2(f) CEOS whose contracts end in 2018 in accordance with the ‘Guidelines for the renewal of temporary agent contracts’ of 28 January 2016 (‘the Guidelines’);














—


order EUIPO to pay to the applicant compensation of a reasonable amount, at the Court’s discretion, in respect of the non-pecuniary and non-material loss caused to the applicant by EUIPO’s decision referred to above; and










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


Manifest error of assessment, failure to exercise the defendant’s discretion, infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, infringement of the principle of non-arbitrariness










2.


Unlawfulness of the termination clause due to infringement of the Guidelines, the principle of sound administration, the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment and the principle that the ending of the contract of a temporary agent requires a justifying ground (a ‘iusta causa’) and infringement of Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Directive 1999/70/EC, (1) the Framework Agreement (in particular Articles 1(b) and 5.1 thereof) and Article 4 of ILO Convention No 158 concerning Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer










3.


Infringement of the Guidelines, which also constitutes a significant procedural defect, infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, of the principle of sound administration and sound financial management, of the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken (Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), of the defendant’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff and of the duty to take into account the legitimate interests of the applicant, manifest error of assessment in its balancing of the applicant’s interests with those of the service and infringement of the principle of non-arbitrariness










4.


As a result of the infringement of the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of Article 8 CEOS and of the prohibition on repeated fixed-term employment, the applicant’s contract remains valid for an unlimited period of time without a termination clause










5.


Unlawful retention of a termination clause in the context of the Reinstatement Protocol and infringement of legitimate expectations, the applicant’s legitimate interests and the defendant’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff when exercising the clause at issue










6.


Infringement of the applicant’s legitimate expectations, of the defendant’s duty to have regard for the applicant’s welfare and failure to take into account the legitimate interests of the applicant as a result of the refusal to renew the contract and manifest error of assessment in the assessment of the interests of the service






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).