# C_2019016EN.01005802.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/58

---

Action brought on 15 November 2018 — ZU v Commission

(Case T-671/18)

(2019/C 16/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Head of the Career Management & Mobility Unit, in Directorate HR.B of Directorate-General Human Resources (DG HR) of the Commission, adopted on 12 October 2018, transferring the applicant back to DG OLAF; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of the Career Management & Mobility Unit, in Directorate HR.B of Directorate-General Human Resources (DG HR) of the Commission, adopted on 12 October 2018, transferring the applicant back to DG OLAF;

| — | annul the decision of the Head of the Account Management Centre 4 Unit, in Directorate HR.AMC of DG HR of the Commission, adopted on 29 October 2018, provisionally setting the date of his assignment at 1 December 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of the Account Management Centre 4 Unit, in Directorate HR.AMC of DG HR of the Commission, adopted on 29 October 2018, provisionally setting the date of his assignment at 1 December 2018;

| — | annul, together with the above, in so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority, yet to be adopted, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, together with the above, in so far as necessary, the decision of the appointing authority, yet to be adopted, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging insufficient transparency of the transfer procedure, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and failure to state grounds, infringement of the applicant’s right to defence from the enforced transfer, and breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging insufficient transparency of the transfer procedure, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and failure to state grounds, infringement of the applicant’s right to defence from the enforced transfer, and breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and of the right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the interest of the service, and breach of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the interest of the service, and breach of the principle of good administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging omission of crucial elements against the immediate transfer of the applicant to OLAF, breach of the principle of good administration, and disregard for the protection of whistle-blowers under Article 22a of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging omission of crucial elements against the immediate transfer of the applicant to OLAF, breach of the principle of good administration, and disregard for the protection of whistle-blowers under Article 22a of the Staff Regulations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

---