Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:665
Date: 2024-10-02
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

Action brought on 24 April 2023 – XH v Commission (Case T-11/23) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: XH (represented by: K. Górny, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul decision No R/404/22 that upheld the note of 31 May 2022 on implementation of the judgment T-511/18 1 concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2017 as defined by the note of 13 November 2017 (IA n° 25-2017); compensate the loss and damages of the applicant (EUR 25 000 for non-material loss and EUR 50 000 for material damage); order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses under Article 268 TFEU. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure 2021: the violation of Decision C(2013) 8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in the light of Articles 7, 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits. Second plea in law, alleging the manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Articles 7, 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Third plea in law, while alleging these reasons, the applicant asks for compensation for material and non-material loss which the applicant claims to have suffered following/as a result of the above-mentioned decisions, which resulted in delayed rectification of the applicant’s personal file taken into account in the promotion exercise; existence of irregular elements in the applicant’s promotion file and manifest errors of assessment during the promotion exercises resulted in an absence of consideration of comparative merits of the candidate and non-implementation of the Court judgment due to failure to repeat in its entirety the promotion exercise 2017, in a regular procedure, with a negative impact on the promotion exercise 2021. ____________ 1 Judgment of 25 June 2020, XH v European Commission (Case T-511/18; EU:T:2020:291).