# C_2020279EN.01004201.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/42

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 KI v eu-LISA

(Case T-338/20)

(2020/C 279/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KI (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 15 July 2019 to reassign the applicant to another position; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 15 July 2019 to reassign the applicant to another position;

| — | as far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

as far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | order the compensation of his moral prejudice estimated at 10 000 EUR; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of his moral prejudice estimated at 10 000 EUR; and,

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

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an illegality of the decision of the Executive Director of 25 June 2019, confirmed and complemented by the decision of the Executive Director of 29 August 2019, insofar as it violates the requirements of a fair and transparent comparison of merits, the principle of non-discrimination, Article 41 of the Charter and the interest of the service. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an illegality of the decision of the Executive Director of 25 June 2019, confirmed and complemented by the decision of the Executive Director of 29 August 2019, insofar as it violates the requirements of a fair and transparent comparison of merits, the principle of non-discrimination, Article 41 of the Charter and the interest of the service.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision manifestly violates the interests of the service and the principle of assignment to an equivalent post. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision manifestly violates the interests of the service and the principle of assignment to an equivalent post.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard, of the duty to state reasons and of Article 41 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard, of the duty to state reasons and of Article 41 of the Charter.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty of care and of Article 31, paragraph 2 of the Charter, Article 1st sexies of the Staff Regulations and Directive 2003/88/CE concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as well as breach of the principle of non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty of care and of Article 31, paragraph 2 of the Charter, Article 1st sexies of the Staff Regulations and Directive 2003/88/CE concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as well as breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

---