CELEX: 62018TN0187
Language: en
Date: 2018-03-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-187/18: Action brought on 9 March 2018 — VP v Cedefop

14.5.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 166/39
            
         Action brought on 9 March 2018 — VP v Cedefop
   (Case T-187/18)
   (2018/C 166/50)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: VP (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present appeal admissible and founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 12 May 2017 of the defendant rejecting the request of the applicant to renew the employment contract for an indefinite period;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 1 December 2017 of the defendant rejecting the complaint of the applicant of 9 August 2017 against the decision of 12 May 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the compensation of the immaterial damage suffered by the applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 100 000 (one hundred thousand) euros;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the compensation of the material damage suffered by the applicant; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by the applicant for the present appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law, alleging that: the decision of the defendant not to renew the employment contract of the applicant was adopted in violation of the right to be heard, the obligation of duty of care, the obligation to state reasons, in violation of the duty to hear the immediate superior; it suffers under a manifest error of appreciation and is vitiated by a misuse of powers.