Case T-286/15: Action brought on 28 May 2015 — KF/SATCEN
Date: 2015-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Satellite Centre, European civil service, abuse of power, disciplinary proceedings, indemnification, interest, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015302EN.01005701.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/57





Action brought on 28 May 2015 — KF/SATCEN
(Case T-286/15)
(2015/C 302/73)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KF (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Satellite Centre (SATCEN)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul/set aside the Appeals Board’s decision of 26 January 2015 notified to the applicant on 23 March 2015 rejecting two appeals of the applicant. The applicant invokes the inapplicability of Article 28.6. of the SATCEN Staff Regulations (1) pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;










—


annul the SATCEN implied decision of 5 July 2013 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance;










—


annul the SATCEN decision of 5 July 2013 to suspend the applicant from duty and initiate disciplinary proceedings, alternatively review the decisions’ legality incidentally in the action against the removal decision;










—


annul the SATCEN removal decision of 28 February 2014;










—


order the SATCEN to pay the applicant compensation for the material damage suffered in the form of salaries, emoluments and entitlements until the end of the applicant’s contract and compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 00  000;










—


order the SATCEN to pay the costs, together with interest of 8 %.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


In support of the action for annulment of the decision of the SATCEN Appeals Board’s decision of 26 January 2015, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy and to fair proceedings.






—


The Appeals Board ignored the majority of the applicant’s factual and legal pleas, and it hardly considered/reviewed any of the multiple breaches of the applicant’s fundamental rights.














2.


In support of the action for annulment of the SATCEN implied refusal of 5 July 2013 to render assistance pursuant to Article 2.6 of the SATCEN Staff Regulations, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






—


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance pursuant to Article 2.6 of the SATCEN Staff Regulations and the applicant’s right under Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘EU Charter’).










—


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the applicant’s right under Article 31 of the EU Charter.














3.


In support of the action for annulment of the suspension decision taken by SATCEN and its decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






—


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality, infringement of the applicant’s right to sound administration, and misuse of powers.










—


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of Articles 1.1 and 2 of Annex IX of SATCEN Staff Regulations, and misuse of powers.










—


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of presumption of innocence.














4.


In support of the action for annulment of removal decision of SATCEN taken on 28 February 2014, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






—


First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, of Article 10.1 of Annex IX of the SATCEN Staff Regulations, and of the applicant’s right to sound administration.










—


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality.










—


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to establish the substantive truth of the facts relied on by the Appointing Authority, the applicant’s right of disclosure to establish her innocence and the principle of the presumption of innocence.










—


Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. The Director’s Report does not state the facts complained of. The Chairperson, Disciplinary Board improperly refused to request the Director to determine the specific acts the applicant is accused of.










(1)  Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP of 14 September 2009 concerning the Staff Regulations of the European Union Satellite Centre (OJ 2009 L 276, p. 1).