Case T-224/18: Action brought on 11 April 2018 — PV v Commission

Action brought on 11 April 2018 — PV v Commission

(Case T-224/18)

Parties

Applicant: PV (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare this application admissible and well-founded;

in consequence, order:

— the joinder of the present application to the pending case T-786/16 in accordance with the principle of connexity and with Article 68 of the consolidated Rules of Procedure of the General Court of the EU of 4 March 2015;

— a finding that the psychological harassment is established and a confirmation of the use of ‘false certifications’, which mean that such irregularities cannot be tolerated in the EU legal order;

— the annulment of the CMS 17/025 procedure in all those aspects and of the decision which forms the basis of claim R/8/18;

— the annulment of the decision setting the applicant’s salary at ‘zero’ with effect from 1 October 2017;

— the annulment of the decision requiring the applicant to participate in appraisal exercise FP 2016 (calendar year 2016) and the rejection of claim R/502/17 of 16 March 2018 as a result of psychological harassment and incapacity to work;

— the annulment of the decision requiring the applicant to participate in appraisal exercise FP 2017 (calendar year 2017) as a result of psychological harassment and incapacity to work and annulment of the decision against which claim R/121/18 was brought;

— the annulment of the decision and the rejection of claim R/413/17 of 15 January 2018 by which the applicant was reassigned to the DG SCIC, in breach of the principle of the most basic care;

— the annulment of the decision of the PMO (Ms [X]) of 12 September 2017, which decided on the set off of debit note No ABAC 324170991 of 20 July 2017 for the amount of EUR 42704,74 against the unpaid salary of the applicant for the period from 1 August 2016 to 30 September 2017, and the rejection of claim R/482/17 of 9 March 2018;

and grant the following compensation on the basis of Article 340 TFEU:

— order compensation in respect of the non-material harm of EUR 98000 flowing from those contested decisions;

— in respect of the material harm, grant: — either an amount of EUR 23190,44 for salary arrears for the period between 1 October 2017 to 30 April 2018 if the General Court considers that the applicant is entitled to his full salary; — or an amount of EUR 7612,87 for salary arrears for the period between 1 October 2017 to 30 April 2018 if the General Court considers that the applicant is entitled only to the difference in salary between his salary at the Commission and that received in the private sector;

— to grant, finally, overall damages of either EUR 121990,44 or EUR 105612,87 together with late-payment interest until the date of payment in full;

and in any event:

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1, 3, 4 and 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Articles 1e, point 2, and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) prohibiting psychological harassment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 21a, 22b and 23 of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of which prohibit the commission of unlawful acts, in particular in that the applicant was required to participate in the 2016 appraisal exercise when he had not worked due to incapacity for work and dismissal from 1 August 2016.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter and Article 11a of the Staff Regulations concerning direct conflicts of interest.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the duty of care and of assistance caused by the decision to reassign the applicant to DG SCIC.

5. Fifth plea in law, based on the legal principle of failure to fulfil obligations and the principle of legality.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9, point 3, of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of the legal principle of ‘ne bis in idem’, vitiating disciplinary procedure CMS 17/025 brought against the applicant.