# C_2022119EN.01005702.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/57

---

Action brought on 31 January 2022 — OD v Eurojust

(Case T-61/22)

(2022/C 119/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OD (represented by: N de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 17 June 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 17 June 2021;

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, inasmuch as it provides an additional statement of reasons, the decision of 21 October 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, inasmuch as it provides an additional statement of reasons, the decision of 21 October 2021;

| — | order the Agency to provide the applicant with compensation in the sum of EUR 35 000ex aequo et bono for psychological, material and non-material harm; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Agency to provide the applicant with compensation in the sum of EUR 35 000ex aequo et bono for psychological, material and non-material harm;

| — | 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 transfer decision, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of confidentiality connected with the request for assistance and a lack of appearance of impartiality as regards the treatment of the applicant’s file by Eurojust. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of confidentiality connected with the request for assistance and a lack of appearance of impartiality as regards the treatment of the applicant’s file by Eurojust.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a lack of competence to take the contested decision on the part of the Administrative Director, based on his having a conflict of interest, his lack of impartiality towards the applicant, or at least a lack of appearance of impartiality on his part, and infringement of the rules for replacing an authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment in the event of inability to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a lack of competence to take the contested decision on the part of the Administrative Director, based on his having a conflict of interest, his lack of impartiality towards the applicant, or at least a lack of appearance of impartiality on his part, and infringement of the rules for replacing an authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment in the event of inability to intervene.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging abuse of process and misuse of powers by the Administrative Director. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging abuse of process and misuse of powers by the Administrative Director.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the transfer of the applicant in the alleged interest of the service was carried out in breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, without taking into consideration either the interest of the member of staff or the interest of the service and without observance of the right to be heard and the need to state the reasons for the decision affecting the interests of the member of staff concerned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the transfer of the applicant in the alleged interest of the service was carried out in breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, without taking into consideration either the interest of the member of staff or the interest of the service and without observance of the right to be heard and the need to state the reasons for the decision affecting the interests of the member of staff concerned.

---