CELEX: C2005/106/52
Language: en
Date: 2005-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2005 in Case T-143/03 Elisabeth Saskia Smit v European Police Office (Europol) (Temporary staff — Europol staff — Non-extension of employment contract)

30.4.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 106/23
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   
   of 1 March 2005
   in Case T-143/03 Elisabeth Saskia Smit v European Police Office (Europol) (1)
   
   (Temporary staff - Europol staff - Non-extension of employment contract)
   (2005/C 106/52)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case T-143/03: Elisabeth Saskia Smit, a former member of the staff of Europol, residing in Scheveningen (Netherlands), represented by F. Baltussen, P. de Casparis and D.C. Coppens, lawyers, against the European Police Office (Europol), the seat of which is at The Hague (Netherlands) (Agents: D. Heimans and K. Hennessy-Massaro, and, at the hearing, N. Urban) — application for annulment of Europol's decision not to extend the term of the applicant's contract of employment and for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánova, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 March 2005, in which it:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls the decision of 30 September 2002 by which Europol refused to renew the applicant's contract of employment and the decision of 27 February 2003 rejecting her complaint against the earlier decision;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the remainder of the action;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders Europol to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.