Appeal brought on 22 April 2020 by WD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18, WD v EFSA

(Case C-167/20 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WD (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 in Case T-320/18;

consequently, grant the appellant the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

annul the decision of 14 July 2017 taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, according to which the appellant is not among the staff members promoted during the 2017 reclassification round;

annul the decision of the AACC of 9 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 October 2017 directed against the decision of 14 July 2017;

annul the decision of 9 August 2017 and notified on 10 August 2017, taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, not to renew the appellant’s employment contract;

annul the decision of the AACC of 12 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 November 2017 directed against the decision of 9 August 2017;

award damages for the harm suffered;

order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards EFSA’s decision of 14 July 2017 not to reclassify the appellant at grade AST 6 in the 2017 reclassification round, the first ground of appeal alleges infringement of the procedural rules applicable and more specifically the rules on admissibility of pleas, infringement of the obligation to state reasons and distortion of the file. The second ground is based on infringement of the applicable regulatory framework (Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, decision of 22 April 2008 and guidance document of 30 June 2010), infringement of the rules on adducing evidence and the obligation to state reasons.

As regards EFSA’s decision of 9 August 2017 not to renew the appellant’s employment contract, the first ground alleges infringement of the decision of 8 December 2012. The second ground is based on breach of the duty of care and of the instruction of 7 March 2017 and distortion of the file. The third ground alleges infringement of the concepts of manifest error of assessment and misuse of power, distortion of the file and failure to comply with the rules on adducing evidence.

____________