CELEX: 62021TN0164
Language: en
Date: 2021-03-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-164/21: Action brought on 26 March 2021 — QM v Europol

17.5.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 189/21
            
         
      Action brought on 26 March 2021 — QM v Europol
      (Case T-164/21)
      (2021/C 189/24)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: QM (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 27 May 2020 not to extend the applicant’s contract for an indefinite duration;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul, to the extent necessary, in so far as it adds further reasoning, the decision of 18 December 2020 rejecting the complaint;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay 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 that the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (‘AACC’) erred in the application of the criteria for assessing the candidate for renewal and, more specifically, in the interpretation of the concept of ‘foreseeable future needs’ which, at the time the decision was adopted, had never been agreed upon or even established.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner before the decision adversely affecting a particular person is adopted.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of sound administration and of the applicant’s legitimate right to be assessed on the basis of the established skills required for the post. The applicant criticises the decision on the ground that it was adopted on the basis of prejudice and fear but without an effective examination of his skills.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the AACC in assessing the applicant’s profile and skills.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging a misuse of rights and breach of the duty of care.