CELEX: 62016TN0826
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-826/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission

23.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 22/52
            
         Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Casasnovas Bernad v Commission
   (Case T-826/16)
   (2017/C 022/71)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Luis Javier Casasnovas Bernad (Saint-Dominique, Dominican Republic) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare and order
            
         
               —
            
            
               that the decision of 27 September 2016 terminating the applicant’s contract is annulled;
            
         
               —
            
            
               that the Commission is to pay the costs.
            
         
      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 that Article 3(3) of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2011 is inapplicable.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in that the authority competent to conclude contracts of employment (AECC) renewed the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period while providing for a termination clause based on the occurrence of an event which may be assimilated to termination.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care in that, firstly, the AECC terminated the applicant’s contract before taking a decision on the renewal of his leave on personal grounds, secondly, it acted thus without even making an initial offer of reinstatement to him and, thirdly, nor did it inform him whether it was possible under the budget to pay him at the end of his leave.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 12b and 40(1a) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union by the AECC.