# C_2023173EN.01003702.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/37

---

Action brought on 24 March 2023 — VO v Commission

(Case T-160/23)

(2023/C 173/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 20 May 2022 notified on the same date via Ares(2022)3814828 [confidential] (1) pursuant to which, in its capacity as appointing authority, the Commission decided to downgrade the applicant from grade AST 2/3 to grade AST 1/3 with an effective date of the first day of the following month, namely 1 June 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 20 May 2022 notified on the same date via Ares(2022)3814828 [confidential] (1) pursuant to which, in its capacity as appointing authority, the Commission decided to downgrade the applicant from grade AST 2/3 to grade AST 1/3 with an effective date of the first day of the following month, namely 1 June 2022;

| — | order the Commission to pay, by way of compensation for material damage, subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, the amount of EUR 533,88 corresponding to the difference between the applicant’s remuneration and benefits due by virtue of her grade AST2/3 and those actually received following the contested downgrading; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay, by way of compensation for material damage, subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, the amount of EUR 533,88 corresponding to the difference between the applicant’s remuneration and benefits due by virtue of her grade AST2/3 and those actually received following the contested downgrading;

| — | order the Commission to pay, by way of compensation for non-material damage and damage to the applicant’s reputation, subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, the amount of EUR 10 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay, by way of compensation for non-material damage and damage to the applicant’s reputation, subject to increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings, the amount of EUR 10 000;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 51 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the internal provisions adopted in implementation thereof, in particular Decision C(2019) 6855 of 4 October 2019 on procedures for dealing with professional incompetence and, in particular, Articles 4 to 7 thereof, and replacing Commission Decision C(2004) 1597/7 of 28 April 2004 on maintaining professional standards. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 51 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the internal provisions adopted in implementation thereof, in particular Decision C(2019) 6855 of 4 October 2019 on procedures for dealing with professional incompetence and, in particular, Articles 4 to 7 thereof, and replacing Commission Decision C(2004) 1597/7 of 28 April 2004 on maintaining professional standards.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle requiring the administration to adopt a decision solely on the basis of legally admissible grounds, that is to say, grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by any manifest error of assessment, fact or law, as well as the obligation to provide a fair and adequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle requiring the administration to adopt a decision solely on the basis of legally admissible grounds, that is to say, grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by any manifest error of assessment, fact or law, as well as the obligation to provide a fair and adequate statement of reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, first, breach of the principles of the duty of care, legitimate expectations, sound administration and equal treatment and, second, abuse and misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, first, breach of the principles of the duty of care, legitimate expectations, sound administration and equal treatment and, second, abuse and misuse of powers.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

---