CELEX: 62017TN0256
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-256/17: Action brought on 2 May 2017 — Labiri v EESC

3.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 213/34
            
         Action brought on 2 May 2017 — Labiri v EESC
   (Case T-256/17)
   (2017/C 213/46)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   Declare and rule that,
   
               —
            
            
               the decision of the EESC not to perform in good faith point 3 of the amicable settlement agreement reached between the parties is annulled;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the EESC shall pay the applicant the sum of EUR 250 000;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the defendant shall 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 infringement of Article 266 TFEU, insofar as the contested decision, according to which it is impossible for the defendant to execute an agreement made as part of an amicable settlement in Case F-33/15, Labiri v EESC, constitutes a failure to execute a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Such an unlawful failure to execute the agreement thus reached constitutes, moreover, an infringement of the duty of care to the applicant, the duty to cooperate in good faith provided for in Article 4(3) TEU, the [principle] of performance in good faith of agreements freely entered into between parties and the principle of sound administration and the duty of assistance flowing from Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers, consisting more specifically of an abuse of process, insofar as the defendant never intended to perform in good faith the agreement reached between the parties and signed that agreement only in order to achieve the discontinuance of Case F-33/15.