CELEX: 62018TA0320
Language: en
Date: 2020-02-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-320/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — WD v EFSA (Civil service — Temporary agents — Fixed term contract — Decision not to reclassify — Lack of staff reports — Carrying forward reclassification points — Manifest error of assessment — Non-renewal decision — Duty of care — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of power — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons — Right to a hearing — Liability)

23.3.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 95/23
            
         
      Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — WD v EFSA
      (Case T-320/18) (1)
      
      (Civil service - Temporary agents - Fixed term contract - Decision not to reclassify - Lack of staff reports - Carrying forward reclassification points - Manifest error of assessment - Non-renewal decision - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of power - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons - Right to a hearing - Liability)
      (2020/C 95/27)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: WD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and F. Volpi, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and C. Dekemexhe, lawyers)
      
         Re:
      
      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the EFSA’s decision of 14 July 2017 not to reclassify the applicant at Grade AST 6 in the 2017 reclassification exercise, the EFSA’s decision of 9 August 2017 not to renew her contract, and the decisions of 9 February and 12 March 2018 dismissing the complaints against those two decisions and, second, seeking compensation for the material and non-material damage the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      The Court:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  dismisses the application;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  orders WD to pay the costs.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 259, 23. 7. 2018.