CELEX: 62016TN0904
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-904/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

27.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/33
            
         Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions
   (Case T-904/16)
   (2017/C 063/44)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)
   
      Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions of 11 May 2016 reassigning the applicant, as an administrator to the Translation Directorate pursuant to the settlement in Case F-33/15;
            
         
               —
            
            
               hold that the EESC committed a misuse of power and infringed its obligation to act in good faith towards the applicant in knowingly misleading her as to the scope of the agreement concluded between the parties on 4 February 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay the costs
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, since the contested decision was adopted in manifest breach of the amicable agreement reached in Case F-33/15 Labri v EESC.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the applicant was deliberately misled as to the scope of the agreement reached between the parties and more specifically as to the two committees’ interpretation of the terms of that agreement.