# C_2019072EN.01003201.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/32

---

Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Barata v Parliament

(Case T-723/18)

(2019/C 72/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: João Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, first, the decision of 23 July 2018 of the European Parliament’s General Secretariat, which rejected the applicant’s complaints under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 2 February 2018 and 13 April 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the decision of 23 July 2018 of the European Parliament’s General Secretariat, which rejected the applicant’s complaints under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 2 February 2018 and 13 April 2018;

| — | annul, second, the decision of 22 March 2018 of the Director for Human Resources Development refusing to review the applicant’s application to participate in the 2017 certification process training scheme and effectively excluding him from the 2017 certification process, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, second, the decision of 22 March 2018 of the Director for Human Resources Development refusing to review the applicant’s application to participate in the 2017 certification process training scheme and effectively excluding him from the 2017 certification process,

| — | annul, third, the decisions of 8 December 2017 and 21 December 2017 of the Director for Human Resources Development to consider the applicant’s application as inadmissible, solely due to the lack of the index in his application for the purposes of the training programme under the 2017 certification procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, third, the decisions of 8 December 2017 and 21 December 2017 of the Director for Human Resources Development to consider the applicant’s application as inadmissible, solely due to the lack of the index in his application for the purposes of the training programme under the 2017 certification procedure;

| — | annul, fourth, the Parliament’s decision of 1 March 2018 notifying the applicant of general results and not including him in the list of the selected officials for 2017 certification procedure, as a result of inadmissibility of the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, fourth, the Parliament’s decision of 1 March 2018 notifying the applicant of general results and not including him in the list of the selected officials for 2017 certification procedure, as a result of inadmissibility of the application;

| — | annul, fifth, the internal notice of competition of 22 September 2017 circulated among the staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, fifth, the internal notice of competition of 22 September 2017 circulated among the staff;

| — | annul, lastly, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training programme. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, lastly, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training programme.

| — | declare, as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, Article 90 of the Staff Regulation invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings, under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, Article 90 of the Staff Regulation invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings, under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

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 breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and breach of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and sound administration, breach of the right of defence and rights to be heard of the applicant and thereby breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and sound administration, breach of the right of defence and rights to be heard of the applicant and thereby breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and also alleging manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and also alleging manifest error of assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (1) and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (1) and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

---

(1)  Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).

---