CELEX: 62017TN0614
Language: en
Date: 2017-09-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-614/17: Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Bonnafous v EACEA

6.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 374/45
            
         Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Bonnafous v EACEA
   (Case T-614/17)
   (2017/C 374/68)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present action admissible and well-founded;
            
         consequently:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 14 November 2016 dismissing the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Authority entitled to Conclude Contracts of Employment of 2 June 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 3 February 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               award the applicant the amount of EUR 15 000 for the non-pecuniary damage suffered;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84 CEAA, procedural irregularities committed by the defendant Agency, infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care and infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant and, in particular, of his right to be heard.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging the absence of normal probationary conditions and infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging the absence of clearly defined objectives, infringement of Article 80 CEAA and failure to observe the principle of correspondence between Function Group IV and the tasks assigned to the applicant.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the probationary period report was based on manifestly erroneous grounds.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration and a misuse of power.