# C_2020068EN.01005601.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/56

---

Action brought on 6 January 2020 — CP v Parliament

(Case T-5/20)

(2020/C 68/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CP (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

accordingly:

| — | annul the applicant’s 2016 staff report, signed by the secretary general on 16 November 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant’s 2016 staff report, signed by the secretary general on 16 November 2018;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the president of 25 September 2019 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the president of 25 September 2019 rejecting the complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons and infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as, first of all, the applicant’s appraisal was incomplete since no assessment was given under the heading ‘sense of responsibility and work ethic’ under ‘conduct’ in the final version of the staff report. Second, there was a sufficiently clear discrepancy between his 2016 staff report and his earlier staff reports, in particular that of 2015, and adequate reasons for that discrepancy were not given. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons and infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as, first of all, the applicant’s appraisal was incomplete since no assessment was given under the heading ‘sense of responsibility and work ethic’ under ‘conduct’ in the final version of the staff report. Second, there was a sufficiently clear discrepancy between his 2016 staff report and his earlier staff reports, in particular that of 2015, and adequate reasons for that discrepancy were not given.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure to take into account in the assessments the fact that the applicant’s unit was understaffed and the applicant’s ancillary activities. In that regard the applicant takes the view that, in 2016, his performance was influenced by several factors which were not properly taken into consideration by the defendant when drawing up his staff report, namely the fact that the unit was understaffed, his participation in the Staff Committee and his involvement in the implementation of a new evacuation concept which had become a priority for Directorate B of DG SAFE, the ‘PPP’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to take into account in the assessments the fact that the applicant’s unit was understaffed and the applicant’s ancillary activities. In that regard the applicant takes the view that, in 2016, his performance was influenced by several factors which were not properly taken into consideration by the defendant when drawing up his staff report, namely the fact that the unit was understaffed, his participation in the Staff Committee and his involvement in the implementation of a new evacuation concept which had become a priority for Directorate B of DG SAFE, the ‘PPP’.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the assessments in the 2016 staff report, marked by a clear deterioration of performance compared to 2015, is manifestly incorrect and does not take into account the applicant’s full dedication to his activities and the results achieved, despite the particularly difficult circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the assessments in the 2016 staff report, marked by a clear deterioration of performance compared to 2015, is manifestly incorrect and does not take into account the applicant’s full dedication to his activities and the results achieved, despite the particularly difficult circumstances.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of a quiet environment during the assessment interviews and infringement of the right to be heard and of Article 6.2 of the internal rules on staff reports, in so far as the interview with the first reporting officer and, in particular, the interview with the last reporting officer did not take place in a quiet environment as required by Article 6.2 of the internal rules and did not allow the applicant to present effectively his observations on the negative remarks in his staff report. The report also remained largely unchanged after those interviews. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of a quiet environment during the assessment interviews and infringement of the right to be heard and of Article 6.2 of the internal rules on staff reports, in so far as the interview with the first reporting officer and, in particular, the interview with the last reporting officer did not take place in a quiet environment as required by Article 6.2 of the internal rules and did not allow the applicant to present effectively his observations on the negative remarks in his staff report. The report also remained largely unchanged after those interviews.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of objectivity and impartiality; harassment; infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; failure to observe the principle that an employer owes a duty of care to his employees; and misuse of power. In that regard, the applicant considers that the lack of sufficient, relevant and well-founded justification for the negative comments or comments with negative connotations in his 2016 staff report leads the applicant to take the view that the report is unfair and is marked by a patent lack of objectivity and impartiality, coming down, rather, to a settling of scores by the final reporting officer, with the help of the first reporting officer. Each element of the assessment was rated lower than in earlier years, particularly 2015, for no reason. It contained nothing positive. Most of the results achieved by the applicant in 2016 were ignored; all the work completed was denied. The report is marked by misuse of power since it had the sole objective of harming the applicant by presenting a truncated version of the reality of his performance, protected, apparently, by the broad discretion given to the reporting officers. This abusive approach, consisting in misusing the appraisal system under the pretext of broad discretion, makes it difficult for the applicant to defend himself since he finds himself apparently faced with value judgments with limited mechanisms for review. Lastly, the defendant failed to comply with its duty of care since the applicant’s interests were manifestly not taken into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principles of objectivity and impartiality; harassment; infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; failure to observe the principle that an employer owes a duty of care to his employees; and misuse of power. In that regard, the applicant considers that the lack of sufficient, relevant and well-founded justification for the negative comments or comments with negative connotations in his 2016 staff report leads the applicant to take the view that the report is unfair and is marked by a patent lack of objectivity and impartiality, coming down, rather, to a settling of scores by the final reporting officer, with the help of the first reporting officer. Each element of the assessment was rated lower than in earlier years, particularly 2015, for no reason. It contained nothing positive. Most of the results achieved by the applicant in 2016 were ignored; all the work completed was denied. The report is marked by misuse of power since it had the sole objective of harming the applicant by presenting a truncated version of the reality of his performance, protected, apparently, by the broad discretion given to the reporting officers. This abusive approach, consisting in misusing the appraisal system under the pretext of broad discretion, makes it difficult for the applicant to defend himself since he finds himself apparently faced with value judgments with limited mechanisms for review. Lastly, the defendant failed to comply with its duty of care since the applicant’s interests were manifestly not taken into consideration.

---