# C_2023045EN.01002201.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/22

---

Action brought on 8 December 2022 — Canel Ferreiro v Council

(Case T-766/22)

(2023/C 45/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria Canel Ferreiro (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: N. Maes, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action;

| — | declare it admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare it admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Council of the European Union of 25 November 2021 imposing the disciplinary penalty of a reprimand; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Council of the European Union of 25 November 2021 imposing the disciplinary penalty of a reprimand;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Council of the European Union of 01 September 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint No 2022_009 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Council of the European Union of 01 September 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint No 2022_009 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul administrative investigation EN-2101 and the investigation report of 28 May 2021 of the Legal Advisers to the Administration of the Directorate-General Organisational Development and Services — Human Resources Directorate of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union concerning the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul administrative investigation EN-2101 and the investigation report of 28 May 2021 of the Legal Advisers to the Administration of the Directorate-General Organisational Development and Services — Human Resources Directorate of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union concerning the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging illegality of the administrative investigation. According to the applicant, the investigators went beyond the factual and temporal scope of the powers granted to them by the appointing authority. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging illegality of the administrative investigation. According to the applicant, the investigators went beyond the factual and temporal scope of the powers granted to them by the appointing authority.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging illegality of the decision to reject the complaint. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the principle of sound administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, was not respected and that the applicant’s case was not handled impartially. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging illegality of the decision to reject the complaint. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the principle of sound administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, was not respected and that the applicant’s case was not handled impartially.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging failure to respect the rights of the defence. The applicant submits that no details regarding the claim made against her were given in respect of the finding made against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging failure to respect the rights of the defence. The applicant submits that no details regarding the claim made against her were given in respect of the finding made against the applicant.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging lack of evidence. According to the applicant, the infringements of Articles 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union have not been proved to the requisite legal standard, so that a disciplinary penalty of a reprimand cannot be imposed on her on the basis of those infringements. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging lack of evidence. According to the applicant, the infringements of Articles 12 and 21 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union have not been proved to the requisite legal standard, so that a disciplinary penalty of a reprimand cannot be imposed on her on the basis of those infringements.

---