CELEX: 62019TN0843
Language: en
Date: 2019-12-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-843/19: Action brought on 12 December 2019 — Correia v EESC

10.2.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 45/93
            
         
      Action brought on 12 December 2019 — Correia v EESC
      (Case T-843/19)
      (2020/C 45/79)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Paula Correia (Sint-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the present action to be admissible and well-founded;
               
            and consequently;
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision adopted on an unknown date, which the applicant became aware of on 12 April 2019, not to promote or reclassify her in 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  grant compensation for non-material damage, evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all of the 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 procedural safeguards of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant claims that the way in which the European Economic and Social Committee makes decisions with regard to the promotion and reclassification of members of the temporary staff working in the group secretariats and, in particular, in the Group I secretariat, undermines the procedural safeguards provided for by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is particularly the case with regard to the decision not to promote or reclassify the applicant in 2019 and other financial years. First of all, that decision contains no statement of reasons. Next, no document, general decision, notification made to the applicant or, more generally, to members of the temporary staff in groups, or Group I, indicate what are the criteria which are relied on and implemented in order to choose which members of the temporary staff will be promoted or reclassified. According to the applicant, the lack of criteria, guarantees of fair treatment, information or statement of reasons is all the more contrary to the requirements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in that some of the members of staff of the secretariats and, in particular, of the Group I secretariat experience very rapid career development while others, like the applicant, progress very slowly.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty. The applicant claims that, even though the European Economic and Social Committee has a discretion in establishing the criteria and rules for implementing Article 10 of the CEOS, those criteria and those rules must ensure a degree of predictability required by EU law and, in particular, must respect the principle of legal certainty. However, that is not the case where there are no criteria enabling members of the temporary staff to know how and under what conditions a promotion or reclassification will occur by concluding an agreement supplementary to the contract of service.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the examination of the staff reports since her last promotion in 2016 leads to the conclusion that the decision not to promote her in 2019 is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care. The applicant claims that her interests were not taken into account when the AECE decided which members of staff would be promoted or reclassified.