# C_2022073EN.01005801.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/58

---

Action brought on 22 December 2021 — PL v Commission

(Case T-790/21)

(2022/C 73/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PL (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the reassignment decision of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security of 16 February 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the reassignment decision of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security of 16 February 2021;

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint submitted under Article 22c dated 16 September 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint submitted under Article 22c dated 16 September 2021;

| — | declare that the Commission has failed to comply with the judgments of the General Court of 15 April 2015 and 13 December 2018 in conformity with the grounds of those judgments and that the Commission disregarded the principle of res judicata; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission has failed to comply with the judgments of the General Court of 15 April 2015 and 13 December 2018 in conformity with the grounds of those judgments and that the Commission disregarded the principle of res judicata;

| — | order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 25 000 in respect of material harm suffered and EUR 100 000 in respect of non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay compensation of EUR 25 000 in respect of material harm suffered and EUR 100 000 in respect of non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay 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 the lack of competence of the administrative authority that rejected the applicant’s complaint. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the administrative authority that rejected the applicant’s complaint.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, of the principle of res judicata, of the principle non-retroactivity, abuse of process, infringement of procedural safeguards, of the right to be heard effectively and in accordance with the intended objective of that right. That plea consists of three parts:






  — | first part, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of the right to be heard, no administrative inquiry, breach of the adversarial principle, breach of the principle of equality of arms and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to sound administration and failure to act within a reasonable time; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, of the principle of res judicata, of the principle non-retroactivity, abuse of process, infringement of procedural safeguards, of the right to be heard effectively and in accordance with the intended objective of that right. That plea consists of three parts:

—

first part, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of the right to be heard, no administrative inquiry, breach of the adversarial principle, breach of the principle of equality of arms and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to sound administration and failure to act within a reasonable time;

| — | second part, alleging admission of the failure to observe the procedural aim and abuse of process, failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and the protection given to informants; |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, alleging admission of the failure to observe the procedural aim and abuse of process, failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and the protection given to informants;

| — | third part, alleging infringement of the principles and rules concerning retroactive effect and legal certainty in relation to retroactive effect, infringement of the principles of impartiality (objective and subjective), willingness to adopt the same decision with the same scope and based on the same grounds instead of compensation for the loss of opportunity to see the procedural rights of the applicant respected in a timely and effective manner. |
| --- | --- |

—

third part, alleging infringement of the principles and rules concerning retroactive effect and legal certainty in relation to retroactive effect, infringement of the principles of impartiality (objective and subjective), willingness to adopt the same decision with the same scope and based on the same grounds instead of compensation for the loss of opportunity to see the procedural rights of the applicant respected in a timely and effective manner.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the duty to afford assistance and to have regard for the welfare of officials in the context of the procedure for reassignment, infringement of Article 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the protection afforded to whistleblowers, of the duties of care, neutrality, impartiality, objectivity, of the right of the applicant to equal treatment of his file by the administration and infringement of his legitimate expectations and abuse of process. That plea consists of four parts:






  — | first part, alleging infringement of Article 22c of the Staff Regulations in that the appointing authority did not adopt the procedure laid down by that provision; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), breach of the duty to afford assistance and to have regard for the welfare of officials in the context of the procedure for reassignment, infringement of Article 22c of the Staff Regulations and of the protection afforded to whistleblowers, of the duties of care, neutrality, impartiality, objectivity, of the right of the applicant to equal treatment of his file by the administration and infringement of his legitimate expectations and abuse of process. That plea consists of four parts:

—

first part, alleging infringement of Article 22c of the Staff Regulations in that the appointing authority did not adopt the procedure laid down by that provision;

| — | second part, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials; |
| --- | --- |

—

second part, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials;

| — | third part, alleging infringement of the principles of objectivity, impartiality and neutrality of the competent appointing authority, infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

third part, alleging infringement of the principles of objectivity, impartiality and neutrality of the competent appointing authority, infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination;

| — | fourth part, alleging infringement of the rules relating to the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

—

fourth part, alleging infringement of the rules relating to the burden of proof.

---