Case C-601/19 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-888/16: BP v FRA
Date: 2019-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, interest, right to justice, rights of the defence, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2019432EN.01001902.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/19






Appeal brought on 7 August 2019 by BP against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2019 in Case T-888/16: BP v FRA
(Case C-601/19 P)
(2019/C 432/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: BP (represented by: E. Lazar, avocat)

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

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested judgment and consequently










—


annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment (AHCC) of 21 April 2016 not to renew her employment contract;










—


award compensation for material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful non-renewal decision on the one hand and the unlawful execution of the judgement in case T-658/13P, on the other hand;










—


award compensation for material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s failure to adopt the lawful rules for appraisal, reclassification and renewal and the related harm resulted from the absence of such lawful rules;










—


rule that the FRA Guidelines for appraisal and reclassification and the FRA Director decision 2009/13 regarding renewal of employment contracts are unlawful insofar as these rules were adopted following an unlawful procedure by an author lacking appropriate competence;










—


exercise its full jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness of its decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the default interest at the key rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points on the amount eventually awarded or any other award of interest payment which the Court thinks just and appropriate;










—


order the FRA to pay the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: the General Court committed a manifest error in the assessment of the second plea relating to unlawfulness of the FRA rules and fourth head of claim related to the plea of illegality raised by the appellant under Article 277 TFEU. In this regard the General Court committed an incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence, distorted the clear sense of evidence, committed an error of law, violated the duty to state reasons, and breached the right to be heard.
Second ground of appeal: the General Court failed to adjudicate on the third head of claim and to exercise full jurisdiction as claimed under the fifth head of claim. In this regard the General Court infringed of the requirement to safeguard legality as envisaged in Article 19(1) TEU and breached Article 268 TFEU.
Third ground of appeal: the General Court violated Articles 35, 36, 64 and 65 of the General Court’s Rules of procedure. In this regard the General Court breached the adversarial principle; failed to serve on FRA the letter of 25 September 2017 and failed to notify the appellant about that service; breached the administration of the evidences attached to the Reply and violated the rules on evidences; wrongly rejected the OLAF Report in joined cases OF/2014/0192 and OF/2015/0167; breached the right to be heard; violated the right to a fair trial; and breached Article 52 of the EU fundamental Rights Charter.
Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court infringed the right of defence and the principle of effective judicial protection laid down in Article 47 of the EU Charter and produced an inadequate statement of reasons.
Fifth plea in law: the General Court violated of Articles 134 and 135 of its Rules of Procedure regarding the costs. In this regard the General Court failed its duty to state reasons.