# C_2017178EN.01002702.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/27

---

Action brought on 24 March 2017 — RZ v EESC and Committee of the Regions

(Case T-192/17)

(2017/C 178/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | grant him access to the documents in the file for the proceedings in Case [confidential] (1) relating to the amicable settlement of that case, and allow him to file observations in that regard; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant him access to the documents in the file for the proceedings in Case [confidential] (1) relating to the amicable settlement of that case, and allow him to file observations in that regard;

confidential

1

| — | annul the joint decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) to transfer [confidential] to the Directorate for Translation as a result of the agreement made to that effect between 14 January and 4 February 2016, in so far as that agreement made provision both for that transfer and for [the person concerned] to continue to perform her duties [confidential]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the joint decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) to transfer [confidential] to the Directorate for Translation as a result of the agreement made to that effect between 14 January and 4 February 2016, in so far as that agreement made provision both for that transfer and for [the person concerned] to continue to perform her duties [confidential];

confidential

confidential

| — | annul the decision, adopted on 11 May 2016 by the CoR following that agreement, for [confidential] to be transferred to the Directorate for Translation while broadly continuing to perform her duties [confidential]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, adopted on 11 May 2016 by the CoR following that agreement, for [confidential] to be transferred to the Directorate for Translation while broadly continuing to perform her duties [confidential];

confidential

confidential

| — | annul the decisions of the Secretary-General of the CoR of 13 December 2016 and of the Secretary-General of the EESC of 19 December 2016 in so far as those decisions confirm the instructions given to the applicant on 30 June 2016 by the Directorate for Translation in order to implement the CoR’s decision of 11 May 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the Secretary-General of the CoR of 13 December 2016 and of the Secretary-General of the EESC of 19 December 2016 in so far as those decisions confirm the instructions given to the applicant on 30 June 2016 by the Directorate for Translation in order to implement the CoR’s decision of 11 May 2016;

| — | order the EESC and the CoR to pay jointly a sum of EUR 25 000 to the applicant, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono, as compensation for the damage to his professional reputation, his authority and his health resulting from the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EESC and the CoR to pay jointly a sum of EUR 25 000 to the applicant, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono, as compensation for the damage to his professional reputation, his authority and his health resulting from the contested decisions;

ex aequo et bono

| — | order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, in that the applicant was not heard before a decision was made by joint agreement by the EESC and the CoR to transfer an official, and/or the applicant was not notified immediately, in writing, of the decision taken by the CoR in implementation of that agreement, while the reasons for that decision were not comprehensively and clearly explained to him. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, in that the applicant was not heard before a decision was made by joint agreement by the EESC and the CoR to transfer an official, and/or the applicant was not notified immediately, in writing, of the decision taken by the CoR in implementation of that agreement, while the reasons for that decision were not comprehensively and clearly explained to him.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations and a misuse of powers and abuse of process, in that the official concerned was transferred to the Directorate for Translation while broadly continuing to perform her duties within the language unit in question. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations and a misuse of powers and abuse of process, in that the official concerned was transferred to the Directorate for Translation while broadly continuing to perform her duties within the language unit in question.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessing the interests of the service, in that the reason for the transfer was to bring to an end an untenable situation or to protect the official against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessing the interests of the service, in that the reason for the transfer was to bring to an end an untenable situation or to protect the official against the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the first and second paragraphs of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations, in that the Secretaries-General of the EESC confirmed the order given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to continue to assign tasks, or to have tasks assigned, to the official in question. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the first and second paragraphs of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations, in that the Secretaries-General of the EESC confirmed the order given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to continue to assign tasks, or to have tasks assigned, to the official in question.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Secretaries-General confirmed the instruction given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to have tasks assigned to the official in question that were equivalent, in terms of volume and importance, to those entrusted to translators with a similar level of experience, and to have her translations revised in a comparable manner. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in that the Secretaries-General confirmed the instruction given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to have tasks assigned to the official in question that were equivalent, in terms of volume and importance, to those entrusted to translators with a similar level of experience, and to have her translations revised in a comparable manner.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the decisions on leave, in that the Secretaries-General confirmed the instruction given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to set out on the same day, or on the following day at the latest, confining himself to overriding reasons, the grounds in the interests of the service for refusing a request for leave made by the official in question. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the decisions on leave, in that the Secretaries-General confirmed the instruction given to the applicant by the Directorate for Translation to set out on the same day, or on the following day at the latest, confining himself to overriding reasons, the grounds in the interests of the service for refusing a request for leave made by the official in question.

---

(1)  Confidential data redacted.

1

---