Action brought on 19 June 2006 - Longinidis v Cedefop

(Case F-74/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Pavlos Longinidis (Thessalonius, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle (′European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training′) ('Cedefop')

Forms of order sought

annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 30 November 2005 terminating the applicant's indefinite term contract;

annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 10 March 2006 refusing the applicant′s request to suspend enforcement of that decision;

annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 9 December 2005 downgrading the applicant from his post as Head of Legal and Contract Management Services to the rank of advisor to Cedefop;

annul the decision of 24 May 2006 by which the Cedefop′s Appeals Committee rejected the applicant′s complaint seeking the annulment of the three abovementioned decisions; this decision contained the grounds on which the appointing authority terminated the applicant′s contract;

annul the decision of 11 November 2005 by which Cedefop′s Directorate amended the composition of the Appeals Committee;

annul the decision of 14 November 2005 by which Cedefop′s Appeals Committee amended its rules of procedure;

annul the decision of Cedefop′s Appeals Committee′s of 10 March 2006 refusing the applicant′s complaint seeking annulment of the abovementioned decisions of 11 November 2005 and of 14 November;

annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 28 April 2006 rejecting the applicant's request that the deputy director of Cedefop should be excluded from leading the administrative investigation concerning him and the applicant;

annul the decision of Cedefop's Appeals Committee of 9 March 2006, relating to the complaint lodged by one of Cedefop's agent, so far as this decision affects the applicant′s reputation and his professional integrity;

order Cedefop to compensate the applicant for the financial damage - equal to the basic rate of salary, additional salary and pension rights - that the abovementioned decision of 30 November 2005 has caused him;

order Cedefop to pay the applicant 50 000 euros as compensation for pain and suffering caused by the abovementioned decision of 30 November 2005 by the abovementioned decision of 9 March 2006;

order Cedefop to pay the applicant one euro symbolically as compensation for pain and suffering caused by the abovementioned decision of 11 November 2005;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the decision of 30 November 2005, the Director of Cedefop terminated the employment contract for an indefinite term linking the applicant to Cedefop. According to the applicant this decision was taken beyond the limits of the discretionary power of the appointing authority and it is marred by misuse of power, breach of the right to be heard and of the right to a fair hearing, and also contradictions in the statement of reasons.

According to the applicant, it is apparent from the explanations given by the appointing authority in the course of examining the administrative complaint that the reason for the dismissal must be found in the proposal, made by the applicant, in August 2005, not to renew the fixed-term employment contract of an employee, of whom the applicant was the hierarchical superior. The appointing authority, following the reappointment of the governing board of Cedefop, reinstated that employee and dismissed the applicant. The appointing authority took this decision on the basis of a manifestly incorrect assessment of the circumstances and the decision to dismiss the applicant was clearly against the interests of the service.

Next, the applicant states that the other contested decisions are marred by breach of Cedefop's internal procedures, such as the provisions concerning the Appeals Committee, the provisions concerning administrative inquiries and disciplinary procedures.

The applicant also requests compensation for the illegal termination of his contract. Finally, he requests compensation from Cedefop, relying on the provisions relating to non-contractual responsibility of the community bodies, because of the alleged attack made on his character and his professional reputation by the decision to dismiss him and by the content of the decision taken by the Appeals committee concerning the complaint lodged by the abovementioned employee.

____________