# C_2022257EN.01004801.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/48

---

Action brought on 19 May 2022 — PB v SRB

(Case T-293/22)

(2022/C 257/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the President of the SRB of 16 July 2021 not to reclassify the applicant at the end of the 2021 reclassification exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the SRB of 16 July 2021 not to reclassify the applicant at the end of the 2021 reclassification exercise;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the SRB’s decision of 14 February 2022 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 15 October 2021 against the decision not to reclassify him; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the SRB’s decision of 14 February 2022 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 15 October 2021 against the decision not to reclassify him;

| — | 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 seven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rules applicable to the implementation of the reclassification exercise as provided for by Article 5 of the general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (the ‘GIP’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rules applicable to the implementation of the reclassification exercise as provided for by Article 5 of the general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (the ‘GIP’).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an erroneous analysis of Article 4 of the GIP and an erroneous assessment of the levels of responsibility with respect to a function and not with respect to a grade. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an erroneous analysis of Article 4 of the GIP and an erroneous assessment of the levels of responsibility with respect to a function and not with respect to a grade.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of procedure of the Joint Reclassification Committee and of the obligation to draw up a report relating to each reclassification exercise. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of procedure of the Joint Reclassification Committee and of the obligation to draw up a report relating to each reclassification exercise.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to documents and infringement of the principles of openness, predictability and legal certainty, and the existence of — at least objective — bias due to the lack of information at multiple stages of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to documents and infringement of the principles of openness, predictability and legal certainty, and the existence of — at least objective — bias due to the lack of information at multiple stages of the procedure.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and errors in the list of factors assessed. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and errors in the list of factors assessed.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Annex II to the GIP and the target average set. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Annex II to the GIP and the target average set.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s file, his merits and his seniority compared with colleagues in the same directorate. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s file, his merits and his seniority compared with colleagues in the same directorate.

---