Appeal brought on 29 August 2023 by UG against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended composition) delivered on 21 June 2023 in Case T-571/17 RENV, UG v Commission
(Case C-546/23 P)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: UG (represented by: M. Richard, avocat)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-571/17 RENV, concerning the parties at issue, in so far as it held that the appellant’s dismissal was justified and ordered the appellant to pay one third of the Commission’s costs;
upon re-examining the case, award the appellant the sum of EUR 68 000 by way of compensation for material damage suffered;
award the appellant the sum of EUR 40 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered;
order the Commission to reimburse all costs and expenses and the legal fees incurred by the appellant for the purposes of defending herself in the context of the present action, provisionally assessed at EUR 10 000, subject to increase;
order the Commission to reimburse all costs and expenses and the appellant’s legal fees in connection with the present proceedings, estimated at EUR 30 000.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In the first place, the judgment under appeal is criticised for infringing the prohibition on dismissal on grounds of parental leave, resulting from the provisions of Article 42a of Regulation No 31 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (‘the Staff Regulations’), read in the light of the minimum requirements contained in Clause 5(4) of the Framework Agreement on parental leave (Directive 2010/18/EU) 1 and Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
As the decision to dismiss the appellant was expressly based on the appellant taking parental leave, it constituted discrimination and infringed Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the European Convention on Human Rights’, in short the ‘ECHR’), in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to family life, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR.
In the second place, the judgment is criticised for having distorted the letter setting out the reasons for the dismissal and the documents in the file by not finding that the dismissal was motivated by the appellant’s trade union activities as a staff representative elected to the Local Staff Committee and the Central Staff Committee.
In any event, the decision to dismiss a staff representative for reasons other than serious reasons breaches the minimum provisions laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2002/14/EC 1 and Article 12 of the Charter. It also constitutes discrimination on the grounds of the exercise of trade union functions, prohibited by Article 14 in conjunction with Article 11 of the ECHR.
In the third place, the judgment is also criticised for failing to identify all the manifest errors of assessment made by the Commission in the letter setting out the reasons for dismissal, in particular by placing the Commission in a privileged procedural position vis-à-vis the appellant and thus failing to guarantee equality of arms, in breach of Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter guaranteeing an effective remedy.
In particular, the appellant claims that: her right to be heard under Article 51(2) of the Staff Regulations has been infringed; the grounds for dismissal lacked precision; she contests having been absent without justification; her alleged professional inadequacy had not been established.
In the fourth place, in the alternative, the appellant challenges the proportionality of the penalty imposed on her.
Finally, the appellant seeks damages in the sum of EUR 68 000 by way of compensation for material damage suffered and EUR 40 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered, in addition to an order that the Commission pay the costs.
____________
1 Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (OJ 2010 L 68, p.13).
1 Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).