Case T-520/20: Action brought on 8 August 2020 — Bonicelli v Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking
Date: 2020-08-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, administrator, discretionary power, promotion








C_2020329EN.01002402.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/24






Action brought on 8 August 2020 — Bonicelli v Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking
(Case T-520/20)
(2020/C 329/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Tullio Bonicelli (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of Fusion for Energy of 24 October 2019, which was published on the same day, establishing the list of staff members promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise in so far as it does not include Mr Bonicelli;










—


in as far as necessary, annul the decision of Fusion for Energy of 8 May 2020 rejecting Mr Bonicelli’s complaint filed on 22 January 2020 against the list of staff members promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise;










—


order Fusion for Energy to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging abuse and misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of sound administration. In that regard, the applicant refers to the defendant’s systematic refusal to promote any official to grade AD 14 and takes the view that that refusal goes far beyond the discretion of the Appointing Authority in relation to the promotion exercise.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations) and manifest error of assessment. The applicant claims that the defendant has not shown that it considered the applicant’s merits and compared his merits with those of other officials in grade AD 13.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging discrimination against the applicant who, in his capacity as head of unit, does not enjoy the benefit of Article 30(8) and (9) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and who is, moreover, a victim of the defendant’s refusal to promote any official to grade AD 14. Thus, some officials who are in the same grade as the applicant, but who are not head of unit, may receive a higher salary.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of entitlement to reasonable career prospects. In that regard, the applicant points to his excellent staff reports, consistency in the duration of his merits, the level of responsibilities he exercises, the use of a number of languages in the course of his work, his seniority in the grade and his hierarchical superior’s recommendation that he be promoted in the 2019 promotion exercise, in addition to the recommendation to that same effect from the Joint Promotions Committee.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons. The applicant claims, inter alia, that the Appointing Authority’s reasoning for rejecting his complaint lacks information specific to his case, which amounts to a complete failure to state reasons.