# C_2022294EN.01004202.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/42

---

Action brought on 16 June 2022 — PQ v EEAS

(Case T-358/22)

(2022/C 294/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PQ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2021 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2021 promotion exercise;

| — | in so far as necessary, cancel the decision to promote the officials included in the list of officials promoted to grade AD 12 in the 2021 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, cancel the decision to promote the officials included in the list of officials promoted to grade AD 12 in the 2021 promotion exercise;

| — | order the European External Action Service to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European External Action Service to pay the costs.

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 breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the absence of any statement of reasons results from the implied rejection of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the absence of any statement of reasons results from the implied rejection of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and the principle of equal treatment, as well as a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and is the result of a manifest error of assessment in so far as, first, the applicant has consistently demonstrated outstanding merit whereas the contested decision places him in a situation of slow career development and, second, the only reproach made in his last staff report taken into account resulted from a manifest error of assessment which was recognised by the appointing authority in its reply of 3 March 2022 to a complaint made by the applicant on 28 October 2021. Finally, the applicant states that the European External Action Service has still not established a system of staff reports and promotions which allows a comparative examination under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in accordance with the requirements laid down by the case-law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and the principle of equal treatment, as well as a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and is the result of a manifest error of assessment in so far as, first, the applicant has consistently demonstrated outstanding merit whereas the contested decision places him in a situation of slow career development and, second, the only reproach made in his last staff report taken into account resulted from a manifest error of assessment which was recognised by the appointing authority in its reply of 3 March 2022 to a complaint made by the applicant on 28 October 2021. Finally, the applicant states that the European External Action Service has still not established a system of staff reports and promotions which allows a comparative examination under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations in accordance with the requirements laid down by the case-law.

---