16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/32

(Case T-462/17)

(2017/C 347/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the European Environment Agency (EEA) of 22 September 2016 terminating the applicant’s employment as a member of contract staff;

—annul the EEA’s decision of 20 April 2017 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 21 December 2016;

—order the EEA to pay the applicant compensation calculated on the basis of the loss of 4 years’ salary, subject to deduction of any unemployment benefit received by her during that period;

—order the EEA to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 3 500 by way of compensation for the fees connected with the early termination of her rental contract in Copenhagen, subject to any increase where relevant;

—annul the applicant’s payslip for September 2016, particularly in so far as it does not include her salary for 22 September 2016;

—order the EEA to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage resulting from the dismissal decision of 22 September 2016;

—order the EEA to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage resulting from the EEA’s infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

—order the EEA to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage resulting from the psychological pressure exerted on her by the EEA during her incapacity to work;

—in the alternative, order the EEA to pay the applicant one month’s notice and compensation equal to one third of her basic salary per month of probation completed in accordance with Article 84 of the CEOS;

—order the EEA to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that Article 48(b) of the CEOS does not apply.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 48(b) and the second paragraph of Article 16 of the CEOS.

3.Third plea in law, based on a plea of illegality on the ground of discrimination with regard to Article 48(b) of the CEOS.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the rights of defence.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84 of the CEOS and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers.