Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:419
Date: 2024-06-26
Language of the case: French
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 9 January 2023 – UA v EUAA (Case T-3/23) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: UA (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: declare the action admissible and well founded and consequently; annul Decision No 99, reference [confidential], 1 taken by the EUAA Management Board on [confidential], notified by e-mail on [confidential] by the Secretariat of the Management Board, and in so far as necessary, all preparatory and/or implementing acts and decisions, by which the Management Board decides, inter alia, that ‘[confidential] is ordered to make good [the damage suffered by] the Agency due to serious personal misconduct liable to entail his personal financial liability, in accordance with Article 22 of the [Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union]. The implementing measure and modalities for compensation will be communicated separately to [confidential]’; order the defendant to pay provisional compensation of EUR 25 000 for both material and non-material damage, subject to modification during the proceedings; order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), applicable by analogy to temporary staff in accordance with Article 11 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, infringement of the Guidelines for applying Article 22 of the Staff Regulations (Financial liability of officials), and in particular Articles 2.1, 2.3.2 and 3.2 thereof, infringement of the rights of defence, in particular Articles 3, 4 and 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations (right to be heard) made applicable by Article 22 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of Articles 41(1) and (2)(a), 48 and 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, lack of materiality of the facts complained of, inadequate statement of reasons, breach of the principle of non bis in idem, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, breach of the principle of legal certainty and sound administration and of the principle of proportionality, breach of the principle of a single administration and of equal treatment, breach of the principle of the authenticity of documents and misuse of powers. ____________ 1 Confidential information redacted.