Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2021:923
Date: 2021-12-21
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 11 October 2019 – DD v FRA (Case T-703/19) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers) Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: grant the applicant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in this appeal, estimated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 50 000; annul the decision of the Director the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 21 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations; if need be, annul the decision of the FRA Director of 24 June 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the enquirers did not have a mandate to investigate a possible breach by the applicant of Article 17 or Article 11 of the Staff Regulations or to investigate the applicant’s email of 5 March 2014 and that the administrative enquiry has no legal basis. The FRA violated Article 86(2) of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) of Executive Board (EB) decision 2013/01. Second plea in law, alleging that the opening of the administrative enquiry was not based on a reasonable suspicion of a disciplinary offence based on prima facie evidence. Third plea in law, alleging that the absence of information to the applicant about the opening of the administrative enquiry and the absence of communication of the related decisions when requested by him are unlawful. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the duration of the enquiry and of the pre-disciplinary procedure was excessive and unreasonable. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision closing the enquiry was not reasoned and did not comply with Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the enquiry report contains an error of law and a manifest error of assessment. Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of confidentiality. Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. 1 Ninth plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of care, lack of objectivity and impartiality and misuse of powers. ____________ 1 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).