23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/25

(Case T-571/17)

(2017/C 357/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UG (represented by: M. Richard and P. Junqueira de Oliveira, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 May 2017 (No R/40/17) and all the decisions which form the basis thereof;

—Order the re-employment of the applicant;

—Order the European Commission to pay pending salaries and damages of EUR 40 000;

—Annul the salary deductions made unlawfully;

—Reimburse the sum of EUR 6 818,81 deducted in excess of the salary deductions made unlawfully;

—Order the European Commission to pay all the costs and to pay the legal fees, provisionally assessed at EUR 10 000.

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 the right to be heard, in that the Commission organised no more than a semblance of a procedure prior to dismissal.

2.Second plea in law, alleging material errors vitiating the contested decision, in that the grounds on which it is based are imprecise, not real and not genuine.

3.Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, in that the Commission dismissed the applicant because of the applicant’s trade union activities and for having taken parental leave.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringements of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, Clause 5.4 of the Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave following Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13), Article 7 of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29) and Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, failing to follow the disciplinary procedure.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the penalty is disproportionate.