7.3.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/17

(Case T-602/15)

(2016/C 090/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Liam Jenkinson (Keery, Ireland) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and European Union Joint Action ‘Eulex Kosovo’

Form of order sought

Principally:

1.With regard to the rights derived from the private law contract:

—recategorise his contractual relationship as an employment contract of an indeterminate duration;

—hold that there has been an infringement by the defendants of their contractual obligations and, in particular, of giving notice of termination of a contract of an indeterminate duration;

In consequence, in compensation for the loss suffered by the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts causing the applicant prolonged uncertainty and the infringement of the obligation to give notice of termination of the contract:

—order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation in lieu of notice of EUR 176 601,55 calculated on the basis of his seniority in post in missions created by the European Union;

—in the alternative, order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation in lieu of notice of EUR 45 985,15 calculated taking account of the length of his service for the fourth defendant;

—hold that the dismissal of the applicant is abusive and, in consequence, order the defendants to pay him compensation assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000;

—hold that the defendants did not have the legal end of employment documents prepared and

—order them to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 per day of non-payment with effect from the bringing of the present action;

—order them to send the applicant the end of employment documents;

—order the defendants to pay interest on the abovementioned sums, calculated at the Belgian legal rate.

2.With regard to the abuse of power and actual discrimination:

—declare that the first three defendants treated the applicant in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, during his employment on the missions which they instituted, as regards his remuneration, pension rights and related benefits and as regards a guarantee of future employment;

—hold that the applicant ought to have been recruited as a member of the temporary staff of one of the first three defendants;

—order the first three defendants to compensate him for the loss of remuneration, pension, allowances and benefits caused by the abovementioned breaches of EU law;

—order them to pay him interest on those sums, calculated at the Belgian legal rate;

—prescribe a period within which the parties are to determine that compensation, having regard to the grade and step in which the applicant ought to have been employed, the average progression of the remuneration, the progress of his career, the allowances which he thus ought to have received under that temporary contract; and compare the results obtained with the remuneration actually received by the applicant.

In the alternative:

—find that the defendants failed to fulfil their obligations;

—order them to compensate the applicant for the harm resulting from that failure, which is estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 150 000.

In any event:

Order the defendants to pay the costs.

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 an abuse of rights committed by the defendants in the successive use of fixed-term contracts and infringement by those defendants of the principle of proportionality.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the protection of workers in the context of a mass redundancy.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the applicant’s right to be heard.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging legal uncertainty caused to the applicant by the defendants and infringement by those defendants of the right to sound administration.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the principle that staff representatives should be consulted.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the right to freedom of movement for workers.