# C_2019399EN.01007901.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/79

---

Action brought on 19 September 2019 — FC v EASO

(Case T-634/19)

(2019/C 399/97)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of EASO under No EASO/ED/2019/309 dated 20 June 2019, by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint of 21 February 2019 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of EASO under No EASO/ED/2019/309 dated 20 June 2019, by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint of 21 February 2019 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of EASO under No EASO/ED/2018/365 dated 14 December 2018 concerning the applicant’s suspension, withholding of her remuneration and a prohibition on her having access to EASO’s facilities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of EASO under No EASO/ED/2018/365 dated 14 December 2018 concerning the applicant’s suspension, withholding of her remuneration and a prohibition on her having access to EASO’s facilities;

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 6 504,00 to compensate for her material loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 6 504,00 to compensate for her material loss;

| — | order EASO to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 250 000,00 to compensate for her non-material harm and harm to her health; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 250 000,00 to compensate for her non-material harm and harm to her health;

| — | order EASO to pay all the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASO to pay all the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The first plea alleges that the contested decisions are vitiated because they infringe the applicant’s right to good administration, in particular as given specific expression in the principles of impartiality and objectivity, and the applicant’s substantive right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea alleges that the contested decisions are vitiated because they infringe the applicant’s right to good administration, in particular as given specific expression in the principles of impartiality and objectivity, and the applicant’s substantive right to be heard.

| 2. | The second plea alleges that, by the way in which the contested decisions were made public, there was a violation of the applicant’s personal data, of the presumption of her innocence and of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea alleges that, by the way in which the contested decisions were made public, there was a violation of the applicant’s personal data, of the presumption of her innocence and of the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | The third plea alleges that a manifest error of assessment is committed in the contested decisions and that the reasons stated are inadequate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea alleges that a manifest error of assessment is committed in the contested decisions and that the reasons stated are inadequate.

| 4. | The fourth plea alleges that the contested decisions adversely affect the applicant’s right of defence and, in essence, prevent her from exercising it. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea alleges that the contested decisions adversely affect the applicant’s right of defence and, in essence, prevent her from exercising it.

---