Case T-79/25: Action brought on 4 February 2025 – UU v Court of Justice of the European Union
Date: 2025-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: criminal proceedings, damages, defamation, disciplinary proceedings, maladministration, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_202501892EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1892


7.4.2025






Action brought on 4 February 2025 – UU v Court of Justice of the European Union


(Case T-79/25)

(C/2025/1892)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UU (represented by: S. Makoumbou, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision R-7/24 of the committee of the General Court which is competent to rule on complaints (‘the Complaints Committee’) of 25 October 2024;










—


annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment of 10 July 2024, which the first contested decision confirms;










—


compensate the material and non-material damage to be determined ex aequo et bono and provisionally estimated by the applicant at EUR 30 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations, Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)
The contested decisions infringe Article 19 of the Staff Regulations in that they failed to recognise that the present case entailed criminal consequences for the applicant in the event of her being unable effectively to exercise her rights of the defence in criminal proceedings brought against her, whereas that provision requires that there be no criminal consequences for the official concerned in order to justify a refusal to grant permission to describe findings made in the exercise of her duties.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 18, 56 and 62 of the Istanbul Convention
The contested decisions infringe the Istanbul Convention in that they do not ensure that the applicant, accused of defamation for having reported being a victim of violence, has a fair trial for the establishment of the facts allegedly suffered and has every means of evidence to defend herself.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality
The contested decisions, which do not permit the disclosure in part of the report of 17 May 2019, go beyond what is necessary to protect the proper administration of justice. In addition, since that report has already been disclosed to another court, which is conducting parallel proceedings, the protection of the interests of the European Union is no longer a valid ground for refusing such permission in the present case.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration, the principle of impartiality and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter
The contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that they fail to take into account the fact that the interests of the European Union have already been assessed and have not prevented the file in the whistleblowing procedure being disclosed to a national court in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the contested decisions infringe Article 41 of the Charter and breach the principle of good administration in that they prevent the applicant from being heard effectively in those proceedings and unnecessarily hinder the truth being established in criminal proceedings. Lastly, they breach the principle of impartiality.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1892/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)