Action brought on 29 June 2021 — WV v EEAS

(Case T-371/21)

(2021/C 422/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of the EEAS of 26 August 2020 and, as appropriate, all the preparatory acts and decisions by which it decides that ‘the sanction of removal of post without reduction of her pension rights is imposed pursuant to Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations on [confidential], (1) an official at the European External Action Service (EEAS). This decision shall take effect on the first day of the month following the date of signature’, reference [confidential], and notified the same day by e-mail by [confidential];

— order compensation for the full extent of the damage which she is suffering and will suffer as a result of the adoption and implementation of the contested decision and of the entirety of the conduct complained of in the course of which that decision was adopted, fixed provisionally and subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 3 500 000;

— order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea, alleging lack of materiality of the acts complained of, use of incorrect legal bases, infringement of Articles 17(1), 21(1), 25, 55(1) and 60 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), manifest errors of assessment, inadequate reasoning, breach of the duty to state reasons and of the rights of the defence, and violation of the ‘non bis in idem’ principle.

2. Second plea, alleging formal and procedural defects in the disciplinary procedure, and in particular infringement of Articles 1, 2 and 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of several provisions of the decision of the Commission of 12 June 2019 laying down general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative enquiries and disciplinary proceedings (‘the GIPs’), repeated violations of the rights of the defence and, in particular, of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) guaranteeing the access of every person to the file concerning him or her, infringement of Article 26, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations, breach of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be heard, infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter and breach of the duty of impartiality enshrined therein, infringement of Regulation 2018/1725 (2) and of Regulation 2001/1049, (3) violation of the principle of equality of arms which is the corollary of the concept of a fair trial guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, breach of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to conduct an impartial, independent and thorough investigation, be it inculpatory or exculpatory, and violation of the principles of good faith and of sound administration.

3. Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, violation of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of proportionality of the penalty, as well as violation of legitimate expectations and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant argues that the penalty is not commensurate with the facts on which the decision is based.

4. Fourth plea, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination, infringement of Articles 12 and 22b of the Staff Regulations, of the duty to assist and of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, abuse and misuse of powers, infringement of the provisions of Directive 2019/1937, (4) infringement of Directives 2000/78 (5) and 2000/43, (6) breach of the duty of sincere cooperation towards the European Parliament and infringement of the European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2017 on combating anti-Semitism (2017/2692(RSP)), of the Council Declaration on combating anti-Semitism of 2 December 2020, of Articles 2 and 3 TEU, of the European Charter of Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(1) Confidential data redacted.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(4) Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17).

(5) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(6) Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).