# C_2020339EN.01002202.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/22

---

Action brought on 23 July 2020 — DD v FRA

(Case T-470/20)

(2020/C 339/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: A. Blot and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 11 November 2019 to issue the disciplinary sanction of removal from post, effective 15 November 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 11 November 2019 to issue the disciplinary sanction of removal from post, effective 15 November 2019;

| — | if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 15 April 2020, received on the same day, rejecting the complaint directed by the applicant against the above decision on 16 December 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 15 April 2020, received on the same day, rejecting the complaint directed by the applicant against the above decision on 16 December 2019;

| — | compensate the material and the non-material prejudices suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate the material and the non-material prejudices suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two sets of pleas in law related to questions of substance and procedure, respectively, and on the principle of proportionality.

With regard to the substance:

| 1. | First substantive plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment — Violation of the principle of legal certainty — Violation of article 7 paragraph 1 of the Austrian copyright law — Violation of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First substantive plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment — Violation of the principle of legal certainty — Violation of article 7 paragraph 1 of the Austrian copyright law — Violation of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

| 2. | Second substantive plea in law, alleging violation of the principles of good administration and of due diligence — Violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence — Burden of proof — Non-establishment of the reality of the facts — Duty to remain measured in statements made. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second substantive plea in law, alleging violation of the principles of good administration and of due diligence — Violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence — Burden of proof — Non-establishment of the reality of the facts — Duty to remain measured in statements made.

| 3. | Third substantive plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality, neutrality and objectivity of the Director as appointing authority — Violation of the presumption of innocence — Misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third substantive plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality, neutrality and objectivity of the Director as appointing authority — Violation of the presumption of innocence — Misuse of power.

| 4. | Fourth substantive plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appreciation.






  — | i. The alleged violation by the applicant of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations has no basis in fact. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth substantive plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appreciation.

—

i. The alleged violation by the applicant of Article 11 of the Staff Regulations has no basis in fact.

| — | ii. The alleged violation by the applicant of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations has no basis in fact. |
| --- | --- |

—

ii. The alleged violation by the applicant of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations has no basis in fact.

| — | iii. The alleged violation by the applicant of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations has no basis in fact. |
| --- | --- |

—

iii. The alleged violation by the applicant of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations has no basis in fact.

With regard to procedure, the applicant complains of the following procedural irregularities:

| 1. | First procedural plea in law, alleging that the opening of the administrative inquiry lacked even prima facie evidence and disciplinary proceedings were opened irregularly. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First procedural plea in law, alleging that the opening of the administrative inquiry lacked even prima facie evidence and disciplinary proceedings were opened irregularly.

| 2. | Second procedural plea in law, alleging non-respect of the mandate by the inquirer — Violation by the defendant is also alleged of: Article 4(2) and Article 7(6) of FRA Decision no 2013/01, (1) Articles 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d) and 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, (2) and, before applicability of Regulation 2018/1725, of Articles 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d) and 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 45/2001 (3) — Violation is furthermore alleged of the effects of a judgment of annulment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second procedural plea in law, alleging non-respect of the mandate by the inquirer — Violation by the defendant is also alleged of: Article 4(2) and Article 7(6) of FRA Decision no 2013/01, (1) Articles 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d) and 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, (2) and, before applicability of Regulation 2018/1725, of Articles 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d) and 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 45/2001 (3) — Violation is furthermore alleged of the effects of a judgment of annulment.

| 3. | Third procedural plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality, neutrality and objectivity of the inquirer. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third procedural plea in law, alleging lack of impartiality, neutrality and objectivity of the inquirer.

| 4. | Fourth procedural plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of the defence, in particular of the right to be heard — Violation by the defendant of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of Article 12 thereof is further alleged. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth procedural plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of the defence, in particular of the right to be heard — Violation by the defendant of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of Article 12 thereof is further alleged.

| 5. | Fifth procedural plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care — Violation by the defendant of the reasonable delay and of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations is further alleged. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth procedural plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care — Violation by the defendant of the reasonable delay and of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations is further alleged.

Furthermore, the applicant relies on the violation of the principle of proportionality as a subsidiary plea.

---

(1)  Decision on Conduct of Administrative Enquiries and Disciplinary Procedures.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---