# C_2020161EN.01004501.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/45

---

Action brought on 27 February 2020 — IR v Commission

(Case T-131/20)

(2020/C 161/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IR (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Director General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion contained in the e-mail of 2 July 2019 of the competent HR business correspondent by which the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) for the third renewal of the secondment of the applicant was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion contained in the e-mail of 2 July 2019 of the competent HR business correspondent by which the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) for the third renewal of the secondment of the applicant was rejected;

| — | annul the decision of 23 January 2020 of the Appointing Authority rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 23 January 2020 of the Appointing Authority rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure, which did not lead to a proper review by the Appointing Authority of the contested decision of 2 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure, which did not lead to a proper review by the Appointing Authority of the contested decision of 2 July 2019.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an essential and procedural violation of Article 38 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an essential and procedural violation of Article 38 of the Staff Regulations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of the duty of care, as part of the right to sound administration with regard to the non-consideration of all the factual elements of the case and the lack of statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of the duty of care, as part of the right to sound administration with regard to the non-consideration of all the factual elements of the case and the lack of statement of reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of protection of the family enshrined in Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of protection of the family enshrined in Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---