# C_2020068EN.01004601.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/46

---

Action brought on 20 December 2019 — RA v Court of Auditors

(Case T-867/19)

(2020/C 68/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RA (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 27 February 2019 taken to comply with the judgment of 8 November 2018, RA v Court of Auditors (T-874/16, not published, EU:T:2018:757) not to promote him to grade AD11 during the 2016 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 27 February 2019 taken to comply with the judgment of 8 November 2018, RA v Court of Auditors (T-874/16, not published, EU:T:2018:757) not to promote him to grade AD11 during the 2016 promotion exercise;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to pay him a sum of EUR 8 000 for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay him a sum of EUR 8 000 for the non-material damage suffered;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that there was inadequate reasoning given in the response dismissing the complaint in that the relevant individual ground justifying the applicant not being promoted was not identified. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there was inadequate reasoning given in the response dismissing the complaint in that the relevant individual ground justifying the applicant not being promoted was not identified.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for not carrying out an effective evaluation of comparative merits for all of the officials eligible for promotion. First, by carrying out a ‘general’ assessment of merits of the officials eligible for promotion, the Appointing Authority did not carry out the comparative evaluation on a basis of equality. Secondly, it applied the criterion of use of languages improperly. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for not carrying out an effective evaluation of comparative merits for all of the officials eligible for promotion. First, by carrying out a ‘general’ assessment of merits of the officials eligible for promotion, the Appointing Authority did not carry out the comparative evaluation on a basis of equality. Secondly, it applied the criterion of use of languages improperly.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which vitiate the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which vitiate the contested decision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt measures to comply with a judgment within a reasonable period, which caused significant non-material damage to the applicant, which should be remedied. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt measures to comply with a judgment within a reasonable period, which caused significant non-material damage to the applicant, which should be remedied.

---