# C_2020371EN.01002901.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/29

---

Action brought on 21 September 2020 — YP v Commission

(Case T-581/20)

(2020/C 371/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: YP (represented by: J. Van Rossum and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 14 November 2019 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 14 in the 2019 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 14 November 2019 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 14 in the 2019 promotion procedure;

| — | 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 infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant submits that the Commission did not take into account her extensive language combinations in its consideration of the comparative merits. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant submits that the Commission did not take into account her extensive language combinations in its consideration of the comparative merits.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicant takes issue with the contested decision for having automatically excluded her from the officials eligible for promotion by applying an administrative practice that involves the automatic removal from the promotion list of the names of all staff members who are the subject of an investigation or who have received an administrative or disciplinary penalty. According to the applicant, such a practice breaches the principle of the presumption of innocence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicant takes issue with the contested decision for having automatically excluded her from the officials eligible for promotion by applying an administrative practice that involves the automatic removal from the promotion list of the names of all staff members who are the subject of an investigation or who have received an administrative or disciplinary penalty. According to the applicant, such a practice breaches the principle of the presumption of innocence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the settlement agreement of 18 September 2019 entered into in Cases T-562/18, YP v Commission and T-563/18, YP v Commission. The applicant takes the view that that agreement binds the parties and that they are obliged to comply with all of its terms. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the settlement agreement of 18 September 2019 entered into in Cases T-562/18, YP v Commission and T-563/18, YP v Commission. The applicant takes the view that that agreement binds the parties and that they are obliged to comply with all of its terms.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that, under that article, a single case of misconduct cannot give rise to more than one disciplinary penalty. While being automatically excluded from the list of officials proposed for promotion and the list of promoted officials does not constitute a disciplinary penalty per se, it is nevertheless a direct consequence of initiating an investigation, disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary sanction. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that, under that article, a single case of misconduct cannot give rise to more than one disciplinary penalty. While being automatically excluded from the list of officials proposed for promotion and the list of promoted officials does not constitute a disciplinary penalty per se, it is nevertheless a direct consequence of initiating an investigation, disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary sanction.

---