18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/49

(Case T-25/19)

(2019/C 103/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AD (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the defendant’s decision of 28 March 2018 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract with the ECHA;

—annul the vacancy notice published on 9 March 2018 by the ECHA for a contractual agent FG II post, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to those the applicant was performing under her temporary agent contract;

—if need be, annul also the defendant’s decision of 1 October 2018, notified to the applicant on 2 October 2018, which rejects the applicant’s complaint against the non-renewal decision;

—order the compensation of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

—order the defendant to pay all the costs.

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 a violation of the Work Instructions laid down by ECHA regarding the renewal or non-renewal process relating to contracts and of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state sufficient reasons.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated by the ECHA to justify the non-renewal of the employment contract are manifestly mistaken and show a misuse of power.