# C_2020209EN.01003201.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/32

---

Action brought on 15 April 2020 — JK v Commission

(Case T-219/20)

(2020/C 209/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JK (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 5 June 2019 of the Director of DG Budget and Administration, Human Resources, of the EEAS rejecting his complaint submitted, on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, on 5 February 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 5 June 2019 of the Director of DG Budget and Administration, Human Resources, of the EEAS rejecting his complaint submitted, on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, on 5 February 2019;

| — | annul the implied decision of the Appointing Authority of the Commission rejecting his complaint lodged, on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, on 5 February 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the Appointing Authority of the Commission rejecting his complaint lodged, on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, on 5 February 2019;

| — | annul, in so far as that decision follows an implied rejection, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 4 September 2019 by the applicant and notified on 6 January 2020 by the Director of DG Budget and Administration, Human Resources and Security; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as that decision follows an implied rejection, the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 4 September 2019 by the applicant and notified on 6 January 2020 by the Director of DG Budget and Administration, Human Resources and Security;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), an error of law in the assessment of the concept of harassment and, more specifically, in its assessment with regard to the implementation of the institution’s duty to provide assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and an error of law on the part of the Appointing Authority in rejecting the complaint, before any initiative for an administrative investigation, as regards the significance of the evidence provided in support of his complaint. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), an error of law in the assessment of the concept of harassment and, more specifically, in its assessment with regard to the implementation of the institution’s duty to provide assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and an error of law on the part of the Appointing Authority in rejecting the complaint, before any initiative for an administrative investigation, as regards the significance of the evidence provided in support of his complaint.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the evidence submitted in support of the request for assistance in view of the fact that the applicant has provided, through his complaint, sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reality of the attacks to which he was subjected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the evidence submitted in support of the request for assistance in view of the fact that the applicant has provided, through his complaint, sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reality of the attacks to which he was subjected.

---