Order — ECLI:EU:T:2018:391
Date: 2018-06-26
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

Action brought on 10 November 2017 — Kerstens v Commission (Case T-757/17) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the Commission’s decision of 27 March 2017 addressed to the applicant in so far as it orders that Case CMS 15/017 is to be recommenced ab initio; annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2017 addressed to the applicant in so far as it orders that Case CMS 12/063 is to be recommenced ab initio; award the applicant compensation amounting to EUR 40 000, by way of special non-material damages, to be paid by the European Commission; order the Commission to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law. 1. First plea in law, alleging that there has been a failure to comply with the annulling judgment of 14 February 2017, Kerstens v Commission (T-270/16 P, not published, EU:T:2017:74) and infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem on the part of the appointing authority, which decided to reopen the disciplinary proceedings to which the applicant had been subject. 2. Second plea in law, alleging that there has been a failure to comply with the judgment cited above and infringement of the principle of sound administration including the obligation to treat cases fairly and impartially, infringement of the principle of presumption of innocence, and a breach of the rights of the defence, in so far as the decisions to reopen those disciplinary proceedings do not guarantee impartial and fair treatment of the applicant’s case. 3. Third plea in law, alleging that there has been a failure to comply with the judgment cited above and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and sound administration, and, in particular, of the reasonable time principle, given that, according to the applicant, new disciplinary proceedings must also take place within a reasonable time, which is not the situation in the present case. 4. Fourth plea in law, requesting special damages following the irregularities mentioned above by way of compensation for the non-material damage which the administrative authorities have allegedly caused the applicant, since, in his view, the annulment of the contested acts is not sufficient, in itself, to compensate for that damage. ____________