- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
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)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TA0320
62018TA0320
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
23.3.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 95/23
(Case T-320/18) (*)
(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.
(*) Language of the case: French.
(1) OJ C 259, 23. 7. 2018.