# C_2021422EN.01002501.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/25

---

Action brought on 20 August 2021 — Grieger v Commission

(Case T-517/21)

(2021/C 422/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vladimir Grieger (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 29 October 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 29 October 2020;

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 11 May 2021 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision dated 11 May 2021 rejecting the complaint;

| — | order the administration to pay the applicant financial compensation equivalent to the management allowance which he would have received from the month following the submission of his transfer request (namely from 1 August 2020); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the administration to pay the applicant financial compensation equivalent to the management allowance which he would have received from the month following the submission of his transfer request (namely from 1 August 2020);

| — | order the administration to compensate the effects of that illegality on the applicant’s pension rights, namely the difference between his actual pension and the pension which he claims he would have been entitled to by reference to his last basic salary including the management allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the administration to compensate the effects of that illegality on the applicant’s pension rights, namely the difference between his actual pension and the pension which he claims he would have been entitled to by reference to his last basic salary including the management allowance;

| — | 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 against the decision of 29 October 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request to be transferred to a senior management position, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the priority principle and of the commitments made by the Appointing Authority in the decision of 30 March 2015 to make the applicant available to the Support Group for Ukraine (SGUA). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the priority principle and of the commitments made by the Appointing Authority in the decision of 30 March 2015 to make the applicant available to the Support Group for Ukraine (SGUA).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of sound administration, the applicant’s legitimate expectations, his acquired rights and the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of sound administration, the applicant’s legitimate expectations, his acquired rights and the authority’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---