(Case T-580/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the authority authorized to conclude contracts of employment for the EFDD group in the European Parliament by which it classified him in function group II, grade 4, step 1, while entrusting him with advisory tasks consistent with a function group IV salary grade until the end of his employment contract on 11/11/2016;

—award the applicant damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by him, including damages for the alleged loss of opportunity to be recruited after the end of his employment contract.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 80 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS).

—The applicant alleges that he was given a salary grade corresponding to Function Group I for his first contract and at the bottom of Function Group II for the second employment contract he was offered, while the vast majority of tasks entrusted to the applicant within the scope of his first and his second employment contracts were administrative and advisory tasks.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 82 of the CEOS.

—Article 82 of the CEOS states that a contract member shall be recruited in function group IV if he can demonstrate a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma or professional training of an equivalent level. The applicant satisfied these criteria and his salary grade should have been adjusted accordingly.

3.Third plea in law, alleging abuse of rights arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts

—The applicant claims an abuse of rights by the appointing authority in the choices of contracts offered to him and, especially, in its decision not to renew his employment contract or offer him a permanent contract.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power by virtue of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract.

—The reasons for the non-renewal of the applicant’s employment contract are not reasonably justified and constitute a misuse of powers justifying a request for damages.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging loss of an opportunity to be recruited.

—The applicant was kept in the dark regarding the possibility of renewal of his contract. He never actually received a proper decision from the appointing authority and could not organize his departure and for example ask for redeployment or submit an application for another position.