CELEX: 62017TN0200
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-200/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO

6.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/29
            
         Action brought on 29 March 2017 — SB v EUIPO
   (Case T-200/17)
   (2017/C 178/42)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: SB (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2016 by which the applicant was refused a second renewal of her contract and against the rejection by the Executive Director of EUIPO of 19 December 2016 of the applicant’s complaint of 1 September 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      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 the breach of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Union as a result of the application of the defendant’s internal rules which equate officials and temporary agents with indefinite contracts. Moreover, by differentiating between temporary agents with fixed-term contracts and temporary agents with contracts concluded for an indefinite period, the defendant infringes the Staff Regulations and, in the case at hand, the principle of equal treatment.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging the lack of reasoning or illegal, contradictory and insufficient reasoning.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging failure to respect the duty of care owed to staff.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging discrimination on the grounds of age as a result of the application by the defendant of a staff policy aimed at reducing the average age of the staff population.