CELEX: 62020TN0028
Language: en
Date: 2020-01-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-28/20: Action brought on 16 January 2020 — ID v EEAS

23.3.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 95/37
            
         
      Action brought on 16 January 2020 — ID v EEAS
      (Case T-28/20)
      (2020/C 95/47)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: ID (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European External Action Service
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare her application admissible;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 449 397,05, in compensation for the material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 20 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 84 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS):
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              on the elements in relation to which a finding of inadequacy must be made to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              on the level of inadequacy that must be met to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              on the failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              on the assessment of the facts capable of supporting a finding of obvious inadequacy.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.