Case T-424/25: Action brought on 1 July 2025 – KJ v Europol
Date: 2025-07-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: amendment of a law, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), tax exemption, temporary employment, termination of employment








C_202504622EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4622


25.8.2025






Action brought on 1 July 2025 – KJ v Europol


(Case T-424/25)

(C/2025/4622)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: KJ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Europol decision of 15 October 2024, rejecting the application lodged on 19 June 2024, submitted under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, by which the applicant sought to remain in post for an additional year;










—


annul the decision taken by the Management Board Complaints Committee of 25 March 2025 dismissing the appeal of 2 December 2024, brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union against the decision of 12 May 2022.










—


order Europol to pay compensation for harm in respect of failure to receive a year’s salary in the amount of EUR 136 123,56 (11 343,63 x 12) and in respect of loss of unpaid pension contributions in the amount of EUR 35 755,92, deducted on a monthly basis from the salary (EUR 993.22 plus the employer’s monthly contribution to the pension fund, amounting to EUR 1 986,44), together with compensation for non-material harm, estimated on an equitable basis at EUR 2 000, together with interest and adjusted for inflation from the time when the right arose until final settlement;










—


order Europol to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU. Breach of law, put forward from the point of view of a breach of overriding principles of law (Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 1d of the Staff Regulations and Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1)).
In this regard, the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of Article 6 of Europol Decision EDOC #1363704v2, in so far as it excludes temporary agents who have been awarded a second contract from the benefit of an extension of the duration of the contract up to 10 years. That exclusion infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, Directive 1999/70/EC and the CEOS (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union). For the same reasons, the applicant seeks the direct annulment of the individual decisions. The disparity concerns agents in similar or comparable positions, who are penalised in terms of pay and social security, without objective and reasonable justification. Those who have their contract extended can benefit from salaries and adjustments which are more favourable than those at national level, including through the tax exemptions provided for in Protocol No 7.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules governing the succession of laws. Error of law. The succession of laws requires that new legal rules of a general and abstract nature be applied also to situations arising under an earlier law and having ongoing effects up to the time of entry into force of the new law. The applicant’s contract continued to produce legal effects on 21 March 2024, the date of entry into force of the decision of a general and abstract nature, which therefore should have produced effects on that contract.






(1)  
            OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4622/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)