# C_2022380EN.01001901.xml

| 3.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/19

---

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — QN v eu-LISA

(Case T-484/22)

(2022/C 380/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QN (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the operational management of large-Scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application;

| — | annul the contested acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested acts;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of 3 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of 3 000 euros;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the European Union Agency for the operational management of large-Scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA) of 22 December 2021 to not include the applicant’s name on the list of staff members reclassified to Grade AD 10 in the 2021 reclassification exercise, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation and application of the defendant’s instrument governing reclassifications, namely decision 2016-016 of the Management Board, in so far as, according to the defendant, that decision subjects reclassification, at each grade, to a condition of average minimum seniority in the grade that the staff member to be reclassified must satisfy and which, in the applicant’s case, for AD 9, was four years. The applicant relies on the fact that he obtained a very high number of reclassification points and that his grade and AD 10 were the only AD grades to which that condition of seniority was applied. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation and application of the defendant’s instrument governing reclassifications, namely decision 2016-016 of the Management Board, in so far as, according to the defendant, that decision subjects reclassification, at each grade, to a condition of average minimum seniority in the grade that the staff member to be reclassified must satisfy and which, in the applicant’s case, for AD 9, was four years. The applicant relies on the fact that he obtained a very high number of reclassification points and that his grade and AD 10 were the only AD grades to which that condition of seniority was applied.

| 2. | Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, claiming that the abovementioned decision is unlawful on the ground that it is incompatible with a number of principles and rules of law governing public service employment, in particular those regarding reclassification based on merit. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, claiming that the abovementioned decision is unlawful on the ground that it is incompatible with a number of principles and rules of law governing public service employment, in particular those regarding reclassification based on merit.

| 3. | Third plea in law, put forward in the further alternative, alleging failure to observe the principle of equal treatment and the principle that officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects, and a manifest error of assessment in so far as, for all AD grades except that of the applicant and AD 10, reclassifications occurred despite the fact that the average minimum seniority condition was not satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, put forward in the further alternative, alleging failure to observe the principle of equal treatment and the principle that officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects, and a manifest error of assessment in so far as, for all AD grades except that of the applicant and AD 10, reclassifications occurred despite the fact that the average minimum seniority condition was not satisfied.

---