Language of document :

Action brought on 26 June 2007 - Patsarika v Cedefop

(Case F-63/07)

Language of the case: Greek


Applicant: Maria Patsarika (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

Form of order sought

annul the decision of Cedefop of 20 September 2006 (ref: Directorate/AMB/2006/380) terminating the applicant's fixed-term contract with Cedefop at the end of her probationary period;

annul the decision of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop (16 March 2007), which rejected the applicant's complaint seeking annulment of the abovementioned decision, and which contains the reasons of the appointing authority regarding notice of termination of the applicant's contract (this decision is not the subject of independent challenge);

order Cedefop to pay damages of an amount equal to the entirety of the applicant's salary, allowances and pension rights corresponding to the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, less the amount of the compensation on dismissal that was granted;

order Cedefop to pay the applicant damages of EUR 20 000 on account of the non-material harm which she has suffered.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 20 September 2006, Cedefop dismissed the applicant with effect from the end of her probationary period. The applicant submits first of all that case-law was infringed in relation to her probationary period since it was not completed under normal conditions. In addition, the adoption of the decision regarding her dismissal involved a misuse of powers and the exceeding of the limits of the available discretion, and the decision was based on a manifest error of assessment. The assessment report which was drawn up before the end of the applicant's probationary period proposed her dismissal, despite her satisfactory professional efficiency and conduct in the service, because of 'doubts as to her moral qualities'. Those doubts were based on events unrelated to the relevant period of employment of the applicant, resulting from her testimony as a witness in another case pending before the Civil Service Tribunal. The content of her testimony in that case is demonstrably correct. Furthermore, no evidence was put forward to support the criticisms regarding her supposed professional inadequacy (which is confined to the evaluative assessments of the deputy director of Cedefop). The applicant further submits that her right to be heard and rights of defence were infringed, as were the principles of objectivity and proportionality. The documents upon which the criticisms of her are based were never communicated to her, nor was she invited to attend the hearing (before the Cedefop Appeals Committee) of her complaint.