# C_2019103EN.01005201.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/52

---

Action brought on 24 January 2019 WV v EEAS

(Case T-43/19)

(2019/C 103/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the application for compensation and, where necessary, the decision of 26 June rejecting the complaint and adopted on 26 October 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the application for compensation and, where necessary, the decision of 26 June rejecting the complaint and adopted on 26 October 2018;

| — | Consequently, grant the application for compensation made by the applicant under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations and described in the letter of 29 November 2017, recognise and grant to the applicant payment of an indemnity to be paid by the EEAS, assessed ex aequo et bono and subject to any increase during the proceedings, in the amount of EUR 690 000, in respect of all material and non-material damages, damage to reputation and to professional integrity, such amount being fixed on 31 January 2019, and subject to any increase during the proceedings and without prejudice to claiming compensation for loss of future income resulting from possible departure from the institutions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, grant the application for compensation made by the applicant under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations and described in the letter of 29 November 2017, recognise and grant to the applicant payment of an indemnity to be paid by the EEAS, assessed ex aequo et bono and subject to any increase during the proceedings, in the amount of EUR 690 000, in respect of all material and non-material damages, damage to reputation and to professional integrity, such amount being fixed on 31 January 2019, and subject to any increase during the proceedings and without prejudice to claiming compensation for loss of future income resulting from possible departure from the institutions;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea, alleging the infringement, inter alia, of Articles 12, 12a, 22b, 24, 25 and 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), of Article 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, and of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

The applicant also alleges, first, by way of that plea, infringement, inter alia, of Articles 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of the rights of defence, and of the principle of adversarial proceedings and Article 296 TFEU.

Secondly, she considers that the administration also committed abuses of rights and abuse of process, in addition to a manifest breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of equality of arms. The applicant considers that the contested decision is vitiated by a breach of the principle that requires the administration to adopt a decision solely on the basis of legally permissible grounds, by which is meant grounds that are relevant and not vitiated by any manifest error of assessment, of fact or of law, and breach of the principle of proportionality, of the duty to afford assistance and to have regard for the interests of members of staff, of the ‘reasonable time’ principle and of the principle of good administration.

The contested decision was therefore based on a partial, biased and tendentious assessment of the facts and of the applicable rules of law.

The applicant claims, in essence, that there is undoubtedly a causal link between the faults committed by the appointing authority and the damage suffered, since such unlawful conduct causes serious damage to the applicant’s professional, moral and financial integrity. The faults committed serve to damage or even destroy the applicant’s reputation vis-à-vis her internal and external interlocutors and results in her having a real loss of opportunity for professional development, placing her, consequently, in a situation of powerlessness, which is the source of concern and/or a state of permanent anxiety and uncertainty as to the future.

---