# C_2021349EN.01004802.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/48

---

Action brought on 17 July 2021 — TO v EEA

(Case T-434/21)

(2021/C 349/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Environment Agency (EEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the EEA of 21 September 2020, in so far as that decision, after having decided to grant the request for repayment of the installation allowance which had been erroneously deducted by the EEA from the payment of sums due on the basis of the judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17, nevertheless decides — and it is to that extent that the decision is challenged — to refuse to grant the other requests which the applicant made, in particular in her e-mail of 16 September 2020, to which the contested decision expressly refers, and which consisted in obtaining, in addition to the repayment of the installation allowance unduly deducted,






  — | the substantial balance — although not quantified on the basis of the absence of a detailed breakdown — still owed, plus interest on the dismissal allowance from 22 September 2016, and from the day of the delivery of the judgment, on the amount of the orders made, until the day of actual payment, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the EEA of 21 September 2020, in so far as that decision, after having decided to grant the request for repayment of the installation allowance which had been erroneously deducted by the EEA from the payment of sums due on the basis of the judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17, nevertheless decides — and it is to that extent that the decision is challenged — to refuse to grant the other requests which the applicant made, in particular in her e-mail of 16 September 2020, to which the contested decision expressly refers, and which consisted in obtaining, in addition to the repayment of the installation allowance unduly deducted,

—

the substantial balance — although not quantified on the basis of the absence of a detailed breakdown — still owed, plus interest on the dismissal allowance from 22 September 2016, and from the day of the delivery of the judgment, on the amount of the orders made, until the day of actual payment,

| — | a detailed breakdown of the sums due in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items and of the sums already paid to the applicant, which must be collected in priority from the interest and incidental items and, thereafter, from the capital, and |
| --- | --- |

—

a detailed breakdown of the sums due in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items and of the sums already paid to the applicant, which must be collected in priority from the interest and incidental items and, thereafter, from the capital, and

| — | damages and interest on the basis of the misconduct of service committed which consisted, first, in infringing the confidentiality granted by the Court to the applicant, by informing her new employer of the dispute with the EEA, via the salary slip of August 2019 stating the amounts paid in credit and debit, and, second, by refusing to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence which had taken place with her counsel at the time, both before and after the delivery of the judgment referred to above; |
| --- | --- |

—

damages and interest on the basis of the misconduct of service committed which consisted, first, in infringing the confidentiality granted by the Court to the applicant, by informing her new employer of the dispute with the EEA, via the salary slip of August 2019 stating the amounts paid in credit and debit, and, second, by refusing to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence which had taken place with her counsel at the time, both before and after the delivery of the judgment referred to above;

| — | annul the decision taken by the EEA, in adopting the contested decision, thus refusing to comply with the judgment of the Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17 in so far as the above contested measure is concerned, in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by the EEA, in adopting the contested decision, thus refusing to comply with the judgment of the Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17 in so far as the above contested measure is concerned, in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items;

| — | order full compliance with the judgment of the Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17 in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items, as well as compensation for all the damage suffered and to be suffered by her, as a result of the adoption and implementation of the contested decision, in so far as the EEA pays her:






  — | the sum corresponding to the indemnity in lieu of notice which it was ordered to pay, as well as the installation indemnity deducted in the amount of EUR 2 950 if it was not, in any event, already repaid, the whole amount plus interest from 22 September 2016; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

order full compliance with the judgment of the Court of 11 June 2019 in Case T-462/17 in respect of the principal sum, interest and incidental items, as well as compensation for all the damage suffered and to be suffered by her, as a result of the adoption and implementation of the contested decision, in so far as the EEA pays her:

—

the sum corresponding to the indemnity in lieu of notice which it was ordered to pay, as well as the installation indemnity deducted in the amount of EUR 2 950 if it was not, in any event, already repaid, the whole amount plus interest from 22 September 2016;

| — | the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of lump-sum compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the disclosure of her personal data to third parties and for breaching the rules of confidentiality, in particular in respect of the applicant’s current employer; |
| --- | --- |

—

the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of lump-sum compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the disclosure of her personal data to third parties and for breaching the rules of confidentiality, in particular in respect of the applicant’s current employer;

| — | the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of lump-sum compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the refusal to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence with her counsel both before and after the judgment was delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

the sum of EUR 20 000 by way of lump-sum compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the refusal to communicate to her the exchange of correspondence with her counsel both before and after the judgment was delivered;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

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 266 TFEU and of the principles of good faith and sound administration, on the ground that the EEA failed to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the principles of good faith and sound administration, on the ground that the EEA failed to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in favour of the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), infringement of the duty to state reasons and infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), infringement of the duty to state reasons and infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging further infringement of the applicant’s personal data, which constitutes an aggravating circumstance in relation to the first judgment, in breach of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging further infringement of the applicant’s personal data, which constitutes an aggravating circumstance in relation to the first judgment, in breach of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

---