# C_2018052EN.01003501.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/35

---

Action brought on 5 December 2017 — Bruel v Commission and EEAS

(Case T-793/17)

(2018/C 052/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Damien Bruel (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and European External Action Service

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

and accordingly:

| — | annul the undated decision signed electronically on 25 September 2017 headed ‘Application for replacement of main expert No 2 in “Financial and Contractual Project Administration”’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the undated decision signed electronically on 25 September 2017 headed ‘Application for replacement of main expert No 2 in “Financial and Contractual Project Administration”’;

| — | declare that the applicant must be compensated for all of the material and non-material damage suffered by him as a result of the serious infringement of the right to good administration in the form of the adoption of the undated decision signed electronically on 25 September 2017 headed ‘Application for replacement of main expert No 2 in “Financial and Contractual Project Administration”’; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the applicant must be compensated for all of the material and non-material damage suffered by him as a result of the serious infringement of the right to good administration in the form of the adoption of the undated decision signed electronically on 25 September 2017 headed ‘Application for replacement of main expert No 2 in “Financial and Contractual Project Administration”’;

| — | find that the defendants are either jointly and severally or each entirely liable to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 152 250 in respect of material damage and the amount of EUR 25 000 in respect of non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the defendants are either jointly and severally or each entirely liable to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 152 250 in respect of material damage and the amount of EUR 25 000 in respect of non-material damage;

and, in any event:

| — | order the defendants to pay all costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay all costs;

| — | reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements. That plea in law is divided into three parts.

| 1. | First part, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, in that the applicant was not able to present his point of view on the allegations made against him before the contested decision was adopted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First part, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, in that the applicant was not able to present his point of view on the allegations made against him before the contested decision was adopted.

| 2. | Second part, alleging infringement of the right of access to the file, in that the applicant has not had access to the file relating to him despite requests to that effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second part, alleging infringement of the right of access to the file, in that the applicant has not had access to the file relating to him despite requests to that effect.

| 3. | Third part, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the reasons contained in the contested decision do not make it possible for the applicant to understand what he is alleged to have done. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third part, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the reasons contained in the contested decision do not make it possible for the applicant to understand what he is alleged to have done.

---