# C_2021019EN.01006501.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/65

---

Action brought on 13 November 2020 — OC v EEAS

(Case T-681/20)

(2021/C 19/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OC (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well-founded;
  accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

accordingly,

| — | annul the decision of 27 January 2020 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s claim for compensation dated 27 September 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 27 January 2020 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s claim for compensation dated 27 September 2019;

| — | if needed, annul the decision of 4 August 2020 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint of 17 April 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

if needed, annul the decision of 4 August 2020 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint of 17 April 2020;

| — | order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material and financial damage incurred, the latter being assessed respectively, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20,000 and EUR 580,889; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the non-material and financial damage incurred, the latter being assessed respectively, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20,000 and EUR 580,889;

| — | 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, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, infringement of Article 3.3 of the Charter of the Tasks and Responsibilities of EEAS Imprest Administrators, infringement of Article 3 of the Code of Professional Standards for EEAS Financial Audit Staff and infringement of Article 2 of Decision PROC HR(2011)008 of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, infringement of Article 3.3 of the Charter of the Tasks and Responsibilities of EEAS Imprest Administrators, infringement of Article 3 of the Code of Professional Standards for EEAS Financial Audit Staff and infringement of Article 2 of Decision PROC HR(2011)008 of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging breach of the duty of care. The applicant submits in particular in that regard that her transfer was decided without observing the principle of equivalence of posts and that, given the circumstances of the case, her transfer was not justified by the interests of the service. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging breach of the duty of care. The applicant submits in particular in that regard that her transfer was decided without observing the principle of equivalence of posts and that, given the circumstances of the case, her transfer was not justified by the interests of the service.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons, as well as infringement of the protection of personal data and of the right to respect for private and family life. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons, as well as infringement of the protection of personal data and of the right to respect for private and family life.

---