# C_2020247EN.01004301.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/43

---

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — KH v EEAS

(Case T-334/20)

(2020/C 247/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 24 July 2019 to reassign the applicant to headquarters, by considering the applicant to be on mission from 1 September to 31 December 2019 only; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 24 July 2019 to reassign the applicant to headquarters, by considering the applicant to be on mission from 1 September to 31 December 2019 only;

| — | annul the decision of 29 July 2019 to reject the request for assistance registered under reference [confidential] which was submitted on 29 March 2019 by the applicant on account of harassment on the part of the applicant’s Head of Delegation [confidential]; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 29 July 2019 to reject the request for assistance registered under reference [confidential] which was submitted on 29 March 2019 by the applicant on account of harassment on the part of the applicant’s Head of Delegation [confidential]; (1)

| — | annul the 2019 staff report (for the period 2018) dated 3 October 2019 which concluded that the applicant had underperformed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the 2019 staff report (for the period 2018) dated 3 October 2019 which concluded that the applicant had underperformed;

| — | annul the decision of 4 November 2019 not to automatically advance the applicant to the next step on account of the applicant’s unsatisfactory staff report; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 November 2019 not to automatically advance the applicant to the next step on account of the applicant’s unsatisfactory staff report;

| — | 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 three sets of pleas in law.

| 1. | Against the reassignment decision, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:






  — | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties to have regard for the welfare of officials and of sound administration; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Against the reassignment decision, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties to have regard for the welfare of officials and of sound administration;

| — | Second plea in law, alleging ineffectiveness of the right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging ineffectiveness of the right to be heard;

| — | Third plea in law, alleging error of law in the reasoning of the memo of 2 April 2019. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging error of law in the reasoning of the memo of 2 April 2019.

| 2. | Against the decision to reject the applicant’s request for assistance, the applicant relies on five pleas in law:






  — | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Against the decision to reject the applicant’s request for assistance, the applicant relies on five pleas in law:

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance;

| — | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a of the of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a of the of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’);

| — | Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations and error of law; |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations and error of law;

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be effectively heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be effectively heard;

| — | Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the evidence submitted for assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the evidence submitted for assessment.

| 3. | Against the staff report, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:






  — | First plea in law, alleging contradictions in EEAS’s position; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Against the staff report, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

—

First plea in law, alleging contradictions in EEAS’s position;

| — | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties of impartiality and neutrality; |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties of impartiality and neutrality;

| — | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties to provide assistance, to have regard for the welfare of officials and of sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties to provide assistance, to have regard for the welfare of officials and of sound administration;

| — | Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and infringement of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and infringement of the rights of the defence.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

---