# C_2022165EN.01004202.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/42

---

Action brought on 3 March 2022 — OK v EEAS

(Case T-113/22)

(2022/C 165/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OK (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | in respect of the request for assistance






  — | annul the EEAS director’s decision to reject, in part, his request for assistance on the grounds of harassment and discriminatory treatment, notified on [confidential]; (1) |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in respect of the request for assistance

—

annul the EEAS director’s decision to reject, in part, his request for assistance on the grounds of harassment and discriminatory treatment, notified on [confidential]; (1)

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, to the extent that it supplements the decision of 15 June 2021, the EEAS Secretary General’s decision to reject his [confidential] complaints regarding the decision rejecting, in part, the abovementioned request for assistance, notified on [confidential]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, to the extent that it supplements the decision of 15 June 2021, the EEAS Secretary General’s decision to reject his [confidential] complaints regarding the decision rejecting, in part, the abovementioned request for assistance, notified on [confidential];

| — | in respect of the content, scope and implementation of the agreement which took effect on [confidential] in the [confidential] case:






  — | annul the [confidential] mutual agreement for defective consent, but also failure to observe its terms; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in respect of the content, scope and implementation of the agreement which took effect on [confidential] in the [confidential] case:

—

annul the [confidential] mutual agreement for defective consent, but also failure to observe its terms;

| — | annul, in so far as it constitutes the implementation of that agreement, the implied decision to promote the applicant retroactively to grade AD 14 on 1 January 2018, as brought to his attention by providing his salary statement of May 2021, and as formally confirmed by decision of the Director-General of Resource Management (Appointing Authority) on [confidential]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as it constitutes the implementation of that agreement, the implied decision to promote the applicant retroactively to grade AD 14 on 1 January 2018, as brought to his attention by providing his salary statement of May 2021, and as formally confirmed by decision of the Director-General of Resource Management (Appointing Authority) on [confidential];

| — | Annul the decision of the Director-General of Resource Managmeent of 30 November 2021 by which the EEAS rejected his [confidential] complaint against there being no express decision regarding his promotion to grade AD 14 on 1 January 2018 and against the EEAS producing a false statement aimed at, and which had the effect in of, altering the opinion of the General Court and the applicant’s right to rely on the principle of equal treatment in relation to this case. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Director-General of Resource Managmeent of 30 November 2021 by which the EEAS rejected his [confidential] complaint against there being no express decision regarding his promotion to grade AD 14 on 1 January 2018 and against the EEAS producing a false statement aimed at, and which had the effect in of, altering the opinion of the General Court and the applicant’s right to rely on the principle of equal treatment in relation to this case.

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant of EUR 52 400 for the purposes of compensating his material harm suffered, as well as compensation for his non-material harm in the symbolic amount fixed at EUR 1. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant of EUR 52 400 for the purposes of compensating his material harm suffered, as well as compensation for his non-material harm in the symbolic amount fixed at EUR 1.

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision rejecting his request for assistance, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging maladministration, breach of the duty of care towards an official who has been a victim of harassment, infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging maladministration, breach of the duty of care towards an official who has been a victim of harassment, infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’) and the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the reality of the acts of harassment suffered by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the reality of the acts of harassment suffered by the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power, infringement of Article 227 TFEU and Article 44 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power, infringement of Article 227 TFEU and Article 44 of the Charter.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the examination of the request for assistance was not consistent with the [confidential] decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the examination of the request for assistance was not consistent with the [confidential] decision.

In support of the action against the implied decision to promote and the settlement agreement concluded in relation to the [confidential] case, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the agreement which took effect in the [confidential] case was invalid and fraudulent. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the agreement which took effect in the [confidential] case was invalid and fraudulent.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the EEAS’s failure to comply with the agreement and abusive reliance on res judicata. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the EEAS’s failure to comply with the agreement and abusive reliance on res judicata.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

---