# C_2023252EN.01007501.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/75

---

Action brought on 25 May 2023 — WU v Eurojust

(Case T-295/23)

(2023/C 252/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WU (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare and order,






  — | the decision of 15 July 2022 of the Executive Board No [confidential] (1) to be annulled; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

declare and order,

—

the decision of 15 July 2022 of the Executive Board No [confidential] (1) to be annulled;

| — | the applicant to be compensated ex aequo et bono in the amount of EUR 5 000 for the damage caused by the illegalities complained of, inadequately covered by the annulment of the decision adversely affecting him; |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant to be compensated ex aequo et bono in the amount of EUR 5 000 for the damage caused by the illegalities complained of, inadequately covered by the annulment of the decision adversely affecting him;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the 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 infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) through the unlawful replication of the procedures and of the authorities empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘AECE’) for the treatment of the request for assistance of the applicant, that rendered the file unnecessarily complex with the examination of the second request being largely disregarded resulting in the distortion of the context. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) through the unlawful replication of the procedures and of the authorities empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘AECE’) for the treatment of the request for assistance of the applicant, that rendered the file unnecessarily complex with the examination of the second request being largely disregarded resulting in the distortion of the context.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the replication of the AECE and infringement of the principle of impartiality, at least objectively. The applicant raises a conflict of interest and being deprived of the right to a second administrative review of his file that would be neutral. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the replication of the AECE and infringement of the principle of impartiality, at least objectively. The applicant raises a conflict of interest and being deprived of the right to a second administrative review of his file that would be neutral.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging an error in law on the part of the AECE where it only considered the request for assistance of the applicant under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, without assessing it under Article 12, which lead to a manifest error of assessment as regards the existence of inappropriate behaviour with respect to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in law on the part of the AECE where it only considered the request for assistance of the applicant under Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, without assessing it under Article 12, which lead to a manifest error of assessment as regards the existence of inappropriate behaviour with respect to the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner, on the ground that the applicant was not provided with all the factors upon which the investigators based their administrative investigation report or on the basis of which the AECE adopted its decision, at least in a timely manner, infringing the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard in an effective manner, on the ground that the applicant was not provided with all the factors upon which the investigators based their administrative investigation report or on the basis of which the AECE adopted its decision, at least in a timely manner, infringing the right to a fair trial.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance in that the defendant did not adopt appropriate measures during the inquiry in breach of a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance in that the defendant did not adopt appropriate measures during the inquiry in breach of a reasonable period of time.

---

(1)  Confidential information redacted.

---