# C_2016402EN.01005701.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/57 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Bernaldo de Quirós v Commission

(Case T-649/16)

(2016/C 402/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Belén Bernaldo de Quirós (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority, in the person of the Director General of DG ‘Education and Culture’ of the European Commission, of 30 November 2015, on the change of assignment of Ms Bernaldo de Quirós from the post of Head of Unit EAC.C.4 ‘Traineeships Office’ to the post of Adviser on Modernisation of Education DG EAC.B; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the European Commission to pay all of the costs. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers.
—
The applicant takes the view that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment concerning the interests of the service and concerning equivalence of posts. She seeks to argue that her reassignment to the post of adviser on modernisation of education was motivated not by the interests of the service but by her hierarchical superiors’ desire to isolate her professionally and to impose on her an anticipated disciplinary penalty. The decision is thus vitiated by a misuse of powers in so far as such an assignment is, moreover, contrary to the interests of the service, in view of the applicant’s areas of competence and the need to fill vacant Head of Unit posts within DG EAC. —
She also takes the view that the reassignment did not observe the principle of equivalence of posts. The new tasks assigned to the applicant are, by their nature, their importance and their scope, below those conferred on an Adviser in Grade AD 13. Furthermore, the post does not correspond to a genuine need of the service, as required by Article 2 of Decision C(2008) 5029/2. | — | The applicant takes the view that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment concerning the interests of the service and concerning equivalence of posts. She seeks to argue that her reassignment to the post of adviser on modernisation of education was motivated not by the interests of the service but by her hierarchical superiors’ desire to isolate her professionally and to impose on her an anticipated disciplinary penalty. The decision is thus vitiated by a misuse of powers in so far as such an assignment is, moreover, contrary to the interests of the service, in view of the applicant’s areas of competence and the need to fill vacant Head of Unit posts within DG EAC. | — | She also takes the view that the reassignment did not observe the principle of equivalence of posts. The new tasks assigned to the applicant are, by their nature, their importance and their scope, below those conferred on an Adviser in Grade AD 13. Furthermore, the post does not correspond to a genuine need of the service, as required by Article 2 of Decision C(2008) 5029/2. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant takes the view that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment concerning the interests of the service and concerning equivalence of posts. She seeks to argue that her reassignment to the post of adviser on modernisation of education was motivated not by the interests of the service but by her hierarchical superiors’ desire to isolate her professionally and to impose on her an anticipated disciplinary penalty. The decision is thus vitiated by a misuse of powers in so far as such an assignment is, moreover, contrary to the interests of the service, in view of the applicant’s areas of competence and the need to fill vacant Head of Unit posts within DG EAC. | | | | |
| — | She also takes the view that the reassignment did not observe the principle of equivalence of posts. The new tasks assigned to the applicant are, by their nature, their importance and their scope, below those conferred on an Adviser in Grade AD 13. Furthermore, the post does not correspond to a genuine need of the service, as required by Article 2 of Decision C(2008) 5029/2. | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and breach of the administration’s duty of care.
—
The applicant claims that the decision to reassign her was not adopted under conditions ensuring her right to be heard, since she was not placed in a position effectively to make known her views on the draft reassignment decision. In addition, she alleges a breach of the administration’s duty of care, since the Appointing Authority took no account whatsoever of the applicant’s interests and did not seek to achieve objectively a proper balance between the interests of the service and those of the applicant, inter alia by considering an assignment to a vacant Head of Unit post. | — | The applicant claims that the decision to reassign her was not adopted under conditions ensuring her right to be heard, since she was not placed in a position effectively to make known her views on the draft reassignment decision. In addition, she alleges a breach of the administration’s duty of care, since the Appointing Authority took no account whatsoever of the applicant’s interests and did not seek to achieve objectively a proper balance between the interests of the service and those of the applicant, inter alia by considering an assignment to a vacant Head of Unit post. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant claims that the decision to reassign her was not adopted under conditions ensuring her right to be heard, since she was not placed in a position effectively to make known her views on the draft reassignment decision. In addition, she alleges a breach of the administration’s duty of care, since the Appointing Authority took no account whatsoever of the applicant’s interests and did not seek to achieve objectively a proper balance between the interests of the service and those of the applicant, inter alia by considering an assignment to a vacant Head of Unit post. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Decision C(2008) 5029/2 of the European Commission of 9 August 2008 concerning the functions of Adviser.
—
The applicant claims an infringement of Decision C(2008) 5029/2, in its consolidated version of 7 July 2016, since DG EAC exceeded the allocated quota of advisers and failed to prove that the post of adviser on modernisation of education to which the applicant was reassigned is in fact lawful. | — | The applicant claims an infringement of Decision C(2008) 5029/2, in its consolidated version of 7 July 2016, since DG EAC exceeded the allocated quota of advisers and failed to prove that the post of adviser on modernisation of education to which the applicant was reassigned is in fact lawful. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant claims an infringement of Decision C(2008) 5029/2, in its consolidated version of 7 July 2016, since DG EAC exceeded the allocated quota of advisers and failed to prove that the post of adviser on modernisation of education to which the applicant was reassigned is in fact lawful. | | |

---