CELEX: 62019TN0277
Language: en
Date: 2019-04-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-277/19: Action brought on 26 April 2019 — BK v European Asylum Support Office

24.6.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/71
            
         
      Action brought on 26 April 2019 — BK v European Asylum Support Office
      (Case T-277/19)
      (2019/C 213/68)
      Language of the case: Greek
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: BK (represented by: B. Christianos, A. Skoulikis and D. Karagkounis, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul the contested decision of the appointing authority, the content of which is set out in the email of 20 September 2018 from the head of the Administration Department, and the implied decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint. Consequently, EASO must take the measures necessary to implement the decision of the Court, in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, with retroactive effect;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the defendant to pay all the applicant’s costs.
               
            
         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 infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and, therefore, breach of an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, which contains a substantive error.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the decision did not take account of the interests of the service and the duty of the Administration to have regard for the welfare of its staff.