Order — ECLI:EU:T:2026:27
Date: 2026-01-12
Language of the case: English
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Procedure: Staff cases;Action for damages

Action brought on 27 September 2024 – XH v Commission (Case T-313/24) 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/91/24 of 27 May 2024 concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of promoted officials in 2023, as defined by the Note of 10 November 2023 (IA No 38-2023); Compensate the applicant for the loss and damages suffered; Order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging error of law and irregularity in the 2023 promotion procedure. It is maintained that the Appointing Authority violated Decision C(2013) 8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, as well as Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, in conjunction with Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The 2023 promotion exercise failed to conduct a proper and thorough comparison of merits, which was tainted by the continued inclusion of uncorrected irregularities originating from the 2017 promotion procedure. Despite the judgment of the General Court in Case T-511/18, 1 that mandated the rectification of the applicant's career file, the Appointing Authority failed to implement that judgment, leading to further procedural flaws in the 2023 promotion process, which denied the applicant fair consideration for promotion. The Appointing Authority committed a manifest error in applying the promotion criteria as provided for in Article 45 SR, disregarding the applicant’s merits and failing to ensure a proper comparison. This resulted, says the applicant, in a rigid and erroneous application of the two-year seniority rule, without due consideration of other relevant factors, as outlined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 7) and by the general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. The failure to rectify the errors identified in the 2017 promotion process compounded the applicant’s situation in 2023, leading to a manifestly flawed assessment of her merits and career trajectory. Second plea in law, claiming compensation for material and non-material damage due to irregularities and delayed rectification. The applicant here refers to her claim for compensation for the material and non-material losses allegedly suffered due to the Appointing Authority’s failure to correct the irregularities in her promotion file, as established by the said judgment in Case T-511/18, and the subsequent flawed implementation of the 2023 promotion procedure. The existence of irregular elements in the applicant’s promotion file, combined with a manifest error of assessment, led, in the applicant’s opinion, to the absence of a fair comparison of merits, and the failure to properly repeat the 2017 promotion exercise in accordance with that judgment. This, it is said, resulted in a direct negative impact on the 2023 promotion exercise, causing both financial and reputational damage to the applicant. The applicant claims compensation under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU for these losses. ____________ 1 Judgment of 25 June 2020, T-511/18, XH v Commission (EU:T:2020:291).