24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/48

(Case T-263/17)

(2017/C 239/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, laywers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul EIGE’s implicit decision of 26 August 2016, rejecting the applicant’s request dated 26 April 2016 for a second renewal of his contract of employment;

—annul also, in so far as necessary, EIGE’s decision of 20 January 2017, notified to the applicant on 23 January 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 3 October 2016 against EIGE’s implicit decision;

—compensate the applicant for the material and moral prejudice suffered;

—reimburse all the costs incurred in the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons and accordingly of the principle of good administration.

—The defendant failed to provide the applicant with a reasoned decision on the substance of the request and subsequent complaint. This total lack of statement of reasons infringes the duty to state reasons and the principle of good administration.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the EU and of EIGE Decision No 82 of 28 July 2014 on contract renewal/non-renewal procedure applicable to temporary and contract agents (‘Decision 82’).

—The defendant failed properly to exercise the discretionary powers granted to it under the above provisions and did not carry out a full or detailed examination of all the relevant facts of the case.

3.Third plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities including the violation of the internal procedural rules set out in Decision 82, the breach of the rights of defence, the right to be heard, the principle of good administration and the duty of care.

—The defendant not only failed to follow the procedure provided for by Decision 82 but also failed to hear the applicant’s views effectively in any other way. It thus failed, before taking the decision of 26 August 2016, to obtain relevant information from the applicant as to his interests and did not allow the applicant to properly prepare his defence.