# C_2022198EN.01006301.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/63

---

Action brought on 24 March 2022 — OQ v Commission

(Case T-162/22)

(2022/C 198/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OQ (represented by: N. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action;

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 19 May 2021 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of removal from post without reduction of pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 19 May 2021 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of removal from post without reduction of pension rights;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 15 December 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint [confidential] (1) under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 15 December 2021 rejecting the applicant’s complaint [confidential] (1) under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, on the ground that the disciplinary penalty imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct committed, taking into account the assessment criteria laid down in Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and did not take account of mitigating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, on the ground that the disciplinary penalty imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct committed, taking into account the assessment criteria laid down in Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and did not take account of mitigating circumstances.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons. The applicant submits that the Commission did not follow the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which recommended the penalty of downgrading within the meaning of Article 9(1)(f) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, without justifying its reasons for taking a different decision to the requisite legal standard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons. The applicant submits that the Commission did not follow the opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which recommended the penalty of downgrading within the meaning of Article 9(1)(f) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, without justifying its reasons for taking a different decision to the requisite legal standard.

---

(1)  Confidential data omitted.

---