# C_2020262EN.01002602.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/26

---

Action brought on 15 May 2020 — WT v Commission

(Case T-91/20)

(2020/C 262/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WT (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 7 November 2019 of the appointing authority (AIPN), notified to the applicant through ARES system on that date, which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 17 July 2019, including the rejection of her request for a EUR 30 000 compensation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 7 November 2019 of the appointing authority (AIPN), notified to the applicant through ARES system on that date, which rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 17 July 2019, including the rejection of her request for a EUR 30 000 compensation;

| — | annul the decision of the AIPN of 17 April 2019, imposing the reprimand, under Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the AIPN of 17 April 2019, imposing the reprimand, under Article 9(1)(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 30 000 compensation for the damaged incurred because of the abovementioned unlawful contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 30 000 compensation for the damaged incurred because of the abovementioned unlawful contested decisions;

| — | order the requested measures of inquiry, as raised in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the requested measures of inquiry, as raised in the present application;

| — | order the European Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs of the present judicial proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear its own and the applicant’s legal costs of the present judicial proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration recognised in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration recognised in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the reasonable period of time recognised in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of legal certainty and a violation of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations (prohibition of harassment) and manifest error of appreciation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of the reasonable period of time recognised in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of legal certainty and a violation of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations (prohibition of harassment) and manifest error of appreciation.

---