# C_2023094EN.01006201.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/62

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — QN v eu-LISA

(Case T-31/23)

(2023/C 94/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QN (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application;

| — | annul the contested acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested acts;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 4 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 4 000;

| — | 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 against the decision of the European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 5 August 2022 to confirm the applicant’s staff report for 2021, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as a result of, inter alia, the lack of consistency in the contested measures, in particular with regard to the relationship between the numerical marks and the written assessment in the staff report. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as a result of, inter alia, the lack of consistency in the contested measures, in particular with regard to the relationship between the numerical marks and the written assessment in the staff report.

| 2. | Second plea, alleging manifest errors of assessment regarding the applicant’s numerical mark on account of the lack of cohesion and consistency of that mark with the written assessment in the staff report. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging manifest errors of assessment regarding the applicant’s numerical mark on account of the lack of cohesion and consistency of that mark with the written assessment in the staff report.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging infringement of the rules governing the drawing up of staff reports, abuse of process and misuse of powers, and breach of the duty of impartiality, in particular on account of the fact that the applicant’s first reporting officer amended his draft report in the light of developments in another procedure concerning the applicant, namely an administrative investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging infringement of the rules governing the drawing up of staff reports, abuse of process and misuse of powers, and breach of the duty of impartiality, in particular on account of the fact that the applicant’s first reporting officer amended his draft report in the light of developments in another procedure concerning the applicant, namely an administrative investigation procedure.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging failure to observe the statutory time limits for drawing up the contested report. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging failure to observe the statutory time limits for drawing up the contested report.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging errors of fact and of calculation. The applicant submits in that regard that the application of incorrect coefficients and rounding rules led to an incorrect overall mark. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging errors of fact and of calculation. The applicant submits in that regard that the application of incorrect coefficients and rounding rules led to an incorrect overall mark.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging breach of the right to be heard, on the ground that the oral exchange between the applicant and his appeal assessor concerned only part of the observations made by the applicant on the draft report. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging breach of the right to be heard, on the ground that the oral exchange between the applicant and his appeal assessor concerned only part of the observations made by the applicant on the draft report.

---