CELEX: 62017TN0817
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-817/17: Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Schokker v EASA

19.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/16
            
         Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Schokker v EASA
   (Case T-817/17)
   (2018/C 063/21)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Boudewijn Schokker (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare and rule:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           That the EASA shall pay the applicant the sum of EUR 80 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which he has suffered;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           That the EASA shall pay the costs.
                        
                     
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, seeking to establish that EASA’s authority empowered to conclude contracts (‘the AECC’) committed a number of administrative errors.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the AECC made an unlawful offer of employment to the applicant which, due to that fact, he was unable to accept unconditionally.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the AECC refused to correct that offer of employment, despite the fact that it was manifestly vitiated by illegality.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the abrupt withdrawal of the offer of employment by the AECC resulted in the definitive closure of the procedure to recruit the applicant.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the AECC failed to have regard to the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure by systematically frustrating all proposals for an out-of-court resolution to the dispute.