# C_2020329EN.01002201.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/22

---

Action brought on 6 August 2020 — Colombani v EEAS

(Case T-507/20)

(2020/C 329/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Brussels, Belgium) (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 the EEAS rejecting his request that the judgment delivered in Case T-372/18 be implemented, as set out in the note of Mr X dated 23 March 2020 and, so far as necessary, the decision of EEAS rejecting his complaint R/195/20 reiterating his request that the judgment delivered in Case T-372/18 be implemented, as set out in the note of Mrs Y dated 30 July 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the EEAS rejecting his request that the judgment delivered in Case T-372/18 be implemented, as set out in the note of Mr X dated 23 March 2020 and, so far as necessary, the decision of EEAS rejecting his complaint R/195/20 reiterating his request that the judgment delivered in Case T-372/18 be implemented, as set out in the note of Mrs Y dated 30 July 2020;

| — | annul, [first,] the decision of the EEAS rejecting his candidature for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Korea, notified by a note of 29 October 2019, signed by the Human Resources Director, in that the EEAS refused to state reasons for that decision and, second, the decision rejecting his application for access to documents, notified by an email of the secretariat of the Consultative Committee on Appointments (CCA) of the EEAS, dated 24 January 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, [first,] the decision of the EEAS rejecting his candidature for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Korea, notified by a note of 29 October 2019, signed by the Human Resources Director, in that the EEAS refused to state reasons for that decision and, second, the decision rejecting his application for access to documents, notified by an email of the secretariat of the Consultative Committee on Appointments (CCA) of the EEAS, dated 24 January 2020;

| — | annul, first, the decisions of the Appointing Authority of the EEAS, dated 27 November 2019, not to accept his candidature for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Uzbekistan and for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to North Macedonia and, second, the decision 21 February 2020 rejecting his application for access to documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the decisions of the Appointing Authority of the EEAS, dated 27 November 2019, not to accept his candidature for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Uzbekistan and for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to North Macedonia and, second, the decision 21 February 2020 rejecting his application for access to documents;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant for the material harm suffered, in the amount of EUR 3 500, and the non-material harm suffered, in the symbolic amount fixed at EUR 1. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant for the material harm suffered, in the amount of EUR 3 500, and the non-material harm suffered, in the symbolic amount fixed at EUR 1.

| — | 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 six pleas in law, the first three of which concern the non-implementation of the judgment in Case T-372/18, Colombani v EEAS, and the last three concern the decisions rejecting the applicant’s candidatures and the decisions rejecting his applications for access to documents.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and maladministration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and maladministration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging lack of neutrality, impartiality, independence and fairness. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging lack of neutrality, impartiality, independence and fairness.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging an error in law in the interpretation of the notion of personal data and in the interpretation of Regulation No 2018/1725 and Regulation No 1049/2001 and the lack of an interpretation of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union which is consistent with the provisions of those regulations. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an error in law in the interpretation of the notion of personal data and in the interpretation of Regulation No 2018/1725 and Regulation No 1049/2001 and the lack of an interpretation of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union which is consistent with the provisions of those regulations.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the limitation on the access to information infringes the principles of sound administration, right to a fair trial, equality of arms, right to an effective remedy and prevents any judicial review of the acts at issue. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the limitation on the access to information infringes the principles of sound administration, right to a fair trial, equality of arms, right to an effective remedy and prevents any judicial review of the acts at issue.

---