Action brought on 10 September 2010 - Scheefer v Parliament

(Case F-75/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Séverine Scheefer (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. L'Hote-Tissier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant's decisions refusing to issue a reasoned decision in relation to the applicant's legal status and in particular refusing to reclassify the applicant's temporary staff contract as engagement for an indefinite period in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) and compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

stay proceedings pending the outcome of Case F-105/09 which is currently before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

otherwise, annul the decisions of 11 February 2010 and 10 June 2010 whereby the Parliament refused, by referring merely to its letter of 12 October 2009, to issue a reasoned decision in relation to the applicant's legal status and in particular refusing notwithstanding two successive renewals to reclassify the applicant's temporary staff contract as a contract for an indefinite period;

annul the Parliament's decision of 12 February 2009;

annul the Parliament's decision of 12 October 2009;

annul the legal classification of the initial contract and its expiry date set for 31 March 2009;

consequently, reclassify the applicant's engagement as engagement for an indefinite period;

award compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant because of the Parliament's conduct;

alternatively, and in the improbable event that the Tribunal were to conclude that notwithstanding the creation of an engagement for an indefinite period, the employment relationship had ended - which is not accepted - award damages for the wrongful termination of the contractual relationship;

further in the alternative, and in the improbable event that the Tribunal were to conclude that no reclassification was possible - which is not accepted - award damages for the harm suffered by the applicant because of the wrongful conduct of the European Parliament;

reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions, and in particular an order that the European Parliament pay damages corresponding to the extent of the harm suffered;

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

____________