CELEX: 62019TN0253
Language: en
Date: 2019-04-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-253/19: Action brought on 15 April 2019 — BG v Parliament

24.6.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/62
            
         
      Action brought on 15 April 2019 — BG v Parliament
      (Case T-253/19)
      (2019/C 213/60)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: BG (represented by: L. Levi, A. Champetier and A. Tymen, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the European Parliament’s decision of 18 May 2018 terminating the applicant’s contract;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  if needed, annul the European Parliament’s decision of 4 January 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 16 August 2018, notified on 9 January 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of EUR 50 000;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to bear the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons and of the procedural rules applicable in the case of termination of the contract in question.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations and in this connection infringement of the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially and fairly, violation of the duty to act diligently and manifest error of assessment.