Case T-218/24: Action brought on 25 April 2024 – DT v Eulex Kosovo
Date: 2024-04-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU police mission, European civil service, Kosovo, abuse of power, damages, indemnification, legal expenses, rights of the defence, termination of employment








C_202404091EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/4091


8.7.2024






Action brought on 25 April 2024 – DT v Eulex Kosovo


(Case T-218/24)

(C/2024/4091)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DT (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer)

Defendant: Eulex Kosovo

Form of order sought

The applicant claims, on the basis of an action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, (1) and an action for damages for contractual liability (Article 340(1) TFEU), that the Court should:






—


Declare unlawful the decision of Eulex Kosovo of 13 November 2023 to terminate the applicant’s contract notified to the applicant on the same day;










—


Declare unlawful the decision of Eulex Kosovo of 20 February 2024 notified to the applicant on 22 February 2024;










—


Order on the basis of contractual liability pursuant to Article 340, paragraph 1, TFEU Eulex Kosovo to compensate the applicant for (a) the material harm suffered as a result of the two unlawful contested decisions and other acts, an amount corresponding to unpaid wages amounting to 19 months’ gross salaries and other entitlements and for (b) the immaterial harm suffered as a result of the two unlawful contested decisions and other acts, assessed provisionally ex aequo et bono at EUR 45 000;










—


Order Eulex Kosovo to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant, together with interest of 8%.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an infringement by the defendant of the right to be heard.






—


The applicant, he argues, was not heard prior to the abolition of his post but informed about it on the day on which a newly created very similar post was advertised mission-wide.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement by the defendant of the duty to state reasons.






—


It is argued that the two contested decisions do not reveal sufficient information on why the decision to abolish the applicant post which led to the termination of his contract was taken.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement by the defendant of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.






—


The applicant maintains that he received precise, unconditional and consistent assurances that his post and employment was secure.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the defendant of the SOP on the Principles and Process of Reconfiguration, the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, the principle of sound administration, and a misuse of powers.






—


The decision to abolish the applicant’s post is a case of substantial mistake of fact. The defendant failed to provide valid reasons for its decision as there is no substantial difference between the applicant’s post and the newly created post. The decision was not grounded on objective factors.










(1)  The applicant also raises an alternative action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, on that legal basis, of the decision of Eulex Kosovo of 13 November 2023 to terminate his contract, in the event that the Court should decline jurisdiction under Article 272 TFEU. The heads of claim and pleas in law are identical to those submitted under Article 272 TFEU.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4091/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)