CELEX: 62020TN0159
Language: en
Date: 2020-03-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-159/20: Action brought on 23 March 2020 — JB v Cedefop

15.6.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 201/30
            
         
      Action brought on 23 March 2020 — JB v Cedefop
      (Case T-159/20)
      (2020/C 201/42)
      Language of the case: Greek
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: JB (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (‘CEDEFOP’)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul CEDEFOP’s implied rejection decision of 19 January 2020;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order CEDEFOP to pay to the applicant the total sum of EUR 442 276,78.
               
            
         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 Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration by reason of the examination of the applicant's claim for compensation by an official of CEDEFOP with the status of an incriminating witness; infringement of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence in the context of the examination of the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, as confirmed by the implied decision rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant downgraded the applicant professionally and decided not to promote her, in breach of the Staff Regulations and the principle of impartiality.