Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/2564

12.5.2025

(Case T-187/25)

(C/2025/2564)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IF (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract, which was notified on 12 June 2024;

—annul, to the extent necessary, in so far as it supplements or amends the decision notified on 12 June 2024, the decision rejecting the complaint dated 11 December 2024 which was notified on 12 December 2024;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging a plea of illegality in that the decision adopted constitutes the application of an internal communication which does not constitute a general implementing provision in application of and in compliance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that the administration failed to adhere to the specific and valid assurances made to the applicant to the effect that it would wait for the outcome of the administrative investigation into him before it would pursue a procedure of non-renewal.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans (no one may rely on his or her own wrongdoing) and breach of the reasonable time principle in that the administration did not carry out an administrative investigation within a reasonable period of time and relied on its own failures to justify the adoption of the contested decision.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration, unlawful use of private, non-occupational data from a private electronic-messaging group, breach of the adversarial principle and infringement of the right to be heard, infringement of the presumption of innocence, in that the administration used factual information without ever informing the applicant of what specifically it was referring to, the content of that information or even the date of that information.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a lack of impartiality and the absence of guarantees connected to the intervention of separate parties who are independent and neutral at each stage of the procedure on the basis of the table of authorities who have the power to conclude contracts, in that his hierarchical superior occupied four positions and separate capacities during the same procedure.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of evidence in support of the reasoning of the decision.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2564/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—