Case T-296/21: Action brought on 20 May 2021 — SU v EIOPA
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, right to justice, rights of the defence, sexual discrimination, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU), termination of employment, work contract








C_2021320EN.01004001.xml










9.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/40






Action brought on 20 May 2021 — SU v EIOPA
(Case T-296/21)
(2021/C 320/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SU (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 15 July 2020 not to renew the applicant’s contract;










—


annul the applicant’s 2019 Appraisal Report;










—


as far as necessary, annul the decision of 11 February 2021 rejecting the complaint;










—


provide compensation for the applicant’s material prejudice, as calculated in this application;










—


provide compensation for the applicant’s moral prejudice, as evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the entire costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law, all of which invoke the alleged illegality of the 2019 appraisal report and of the non-renewal decision but on different grounds, as follows.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the 2019 appraisal report was not duly finalised and the contract renewal report (CRR) relied on a non-finalised appraisal report.






—


The applicant considers that the 2019 appraisal report is illegal insofar as it was not duly finalised by a reasoned decision of the appeal assessor. She also considers that the non-renewal decision is illegal insofar as it relied on a 2019 appraisal report, which was not finalised.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of impartiality, of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.






—


According to the distribution of tasks and responsibilities at the EIOPA, the Executive Director has been tasked to act as appeal assessor and the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Employment (AACC) in this case, which does not ensure the impartiality of both the 2019 appraisal process and the decision of non-renewal of the applicant’s contract.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right to be heard and of the duty to state reasons, violation of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of paragraphs 6.7, 6.9 and 6.10 of the EIOPA contract renewal procedure.






—


The applicant hereby considers that her right to be heard and the duty to state reasons were violated in relation to both the decision of non-renewal of contract and her 2019 appraisal.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, absence of a diligent assessment of all aspects of the case and violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, together with violation of Article 4 and 6.5 of the contract renewal procedure.






—


In this case, the defendant’s assessment is illegal, tainted by a manifest error of assessment and a violation of the duty of good administration, for two main reasons. Firstly, the applicant argues that the defendant did not take into due consideration the other criteria referred to in Article 4 of the procedure on contract renewal and, in particular, the applicant’s previous positive performance assessments. Secondly, the reasons given by the defendant with regard to the applicant’s performance in 2019 and 2020 are manifestly erroneous and unfounded.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging discrimination based on gender and family situation — violation of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.






—


The applicant considers that she was discriminated against, due to her leave periods and working patterns, and that the decision not to renew her contract is tainted by such discrimination and constitutes retaliation.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of care.






—


According to the duty of care, the administration must not only take into account the interest of the service but also the interests of the staff member. This, the applicant alleges, was not done.