14.8.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/25

—

annul the negative probationary period assessment report on the applicant and thereby require EASO to draw up a new assessment report for the applicant with the result that her employment is confirmed;

—

annul Decision EASO/ED/2015/358;

—

declare that the applicant’s dismissal was not by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE);

—

annul Decision EASO/HR/2015/607 terminating the applicant’s employment at the end of the probationary period, so that her employment continues uninterruptedly from 1 March 2015 to 28 February 2020 (the date of termination of the employment relationship under the contract);

—

if EASO cannot restore the applicant’s employment relationship, require EASO to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered as a result of EASO’s wrongful decision by paying her as damages salary, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for the period from 1 December 2015 to 28 February 2020;

—

if EASO restores the applicant’s employment relationship, require EASO to pay the applicant as damages salary, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for the period in which she was without employment, from 1 December 2015 until her return to work;

—

order EASO to award the applicant a month’s salary and employer’s pension contributions in accordance with paragraph 5 of Case F-113/13;

—

order EASO to pay the applicant’s costs.

1.

The first plea in law alleges that the assessor of the probationary period misused his discretion by drawing up a negative assessment report for the probationary period and groundlessly making public criticisms against the applicant. The applicant submits that EASO found without any reference to the case-law or other source of law that (each) ‘assessor enjoys an especially broad discretion in assessing the work of persons on whom he is to report, since the assessment report conveys the assessor’s freely expressed opinion’.

2.

The second plea in law alleges that EASO breached the principle of proper assessment when drawing up the probationary period assessment report. The assessment of the probationary period on which the decision to dismiss was based was done without taking account of ‘the facts as they were’, was contrary to the EU Staff Regulations and the EASO Guide to the Assessment of Probationary Staff, and took no account of the applicant’s written comments on the probationary period assessment report.

3.

The third plea in law alleges that EASO infringed the principle of equal treatment and that EASO misinterpreted the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by using them against the applicant.

4.

The fourth plea in law alleges that EASO misused its discretion when signing official EU document EASO/ED/2015/358 (delegation of powers), which was done unlawfully because of the lack of binding implementation rules of EASO’s board of administration, contains a clear conflict of interests, and in the applicant’s opinion was incorrectly dated.

5.

The fifth plea in law alleges that in the probationary period assessment report and subsequent dealings EASO made use of document EASO/ED/2015/358, which is dated retroactively.

6.

The sixth plea in law alleges that throughout the procedure for assessment of the probationary period EASO breached the procedural provisions applicable to the assessment procedure and the provisions concerning administrative inquiries, and infringed the applicant’s rights of defence. According to the applicant, the decision on the probationary period assessment report could have been the opposite, that is to say positive, if EASO had not infringed the EU Staff Regulations and the EASO Guide to the Assessment of Probationary Staff.

7.

The seventh plea in law alleges that the applicant validly presented arguments with the purpose of calling in question the lawfulness of the decision to dismiss. According to the applicant, EASO’s decision to terminate her employment contract is based on incorrect considerations and EASO’s deficiencies during the probationary period assessment procedure, including unlawful nomination of the maker of the decision to dismiss, his lack of expertise in staff matters and his lack of acquaintance with the probationary period assessment documents, with the mistakes in the assessment of the probationary period and with the applicant’s complaints and comments.