# C_2020129EN.01002102.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/21

---

Action brought on 21 February 2020 — IP v Commission

(Case T-121/20)

(2020/C 129/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IP (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible and therefore well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and therefore well founded;

and consequently,

| — | annul the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions;

| — | 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 against the Commission’s decision of 21 August 2019 imposing on him the disciplinary penalty of termination without notice of his employment contract, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and the duty to state reasons. In that respect the applicant claims, inter alia, that he was not treated fairly by the Commission which did not comply with its obligation for due diligence or its duty of care. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission should have obtained information about the outcome of the criminal proceedings which concluded with the proceedings being discontinued and passed that outcome on to the Disciplinary Board in order for the board to take it into account in its decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and the duty to state reasons. In that respect the applicant claims, inter alia, that he was not treated fairly by the Commission which did not comply with its obligation for due diligence or its duty of care. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission should have obtained information about the outcome of the criminal proceedings which concluded with the proceedings being discontinued and passed that outcome on to the Disciplinary Board in order for the board to take it into account in its decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the preparatory measures taken for the contested decision and manifest errors of assessment committed by the Commission. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the unlawfulness of both preparatory measures taken for the contested decision renders that decision unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the preparatory measures taken for the contested decision and manifest errors of assessment committed by the Commission. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the unlawfulness of both preparatory measures taken for the contested decision renders that decision unlawful.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the ground that, first, all of the specific circumstances of the applicant’s file were not examined and, secondly, the criteria used to determine the penalty were assessed incorrectly or given disproportionate weight. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the ground that, first, all of the specific circumstances of the applicant’s file were not examined and, secondly, the criteria used to determine the penalty were assessed incorrectly or given disproportionate weight.

---