do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-122/21: Action brought on 25 February 2021 — QI v Commission
Date: 2021-02-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, duties of civil servants, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU), whistleblowing








C_2021138EN.01005001.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/50






Action brought on 25 February 2021 — QI v Commission
(Case T-122/21)
(2021/C 138/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: QI (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the 2018 and 2019 final career evaluation reports of the applicant;










—


annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint of 16 November 2020;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the applicable general implementing provisions. As regards the 2018 evaluation report, the applicant alleges an unlawful review of the satisfactory nature of the services at the appeal stage. As regards the 2019 evaluation report, the applicant complains that the appeal assessor intervened at an early stage. Finally, as regards the two reports, the applicant alleges the erroneous interpretation and application of Article 2(3)(a) of the general implementing provisions and of Article 4 of those provisions to her situation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to be impartial and neutral, infringement of the duty to provide assistance and of good administration, infringement of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, as well as misuse or abuse of process.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, material inaccuracies as regards the facts, abusive claims not related to objective facts and infringement of the concept of duty to act in good faith.