Case T-279/25: Action brought on 30 April 2025 – NZ v Commission
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), damages, equal treatment, pay scale, promotion, remuneration of work, staff regulations (EU)








C_202503640EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3640


14.7.2025






Action brought on 30 April 2025 – NZ v Commission


(Case T-279/25)

(C/2025/3640)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: NZ (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decisions;










—


order the defendant to pay:






—


the difference between, on the one hand, the net remuneration (salary and other financial benefits) which the applicant would have received if she had been appointed to grade AD10 with effect from 1 March 2020 and if, consequently, until 30 April 2025, the date of filing of the present application, her career had progressed in line with the advancement to a higher step provided for by the Staff Regulations [of Officials of the European Union] and the average length of time spent by an official in each grade, as set out in Section B of Annex I to the Staff Regulations, and, on the other, the net remuneration which the applicant actually received in respect of the period between the above dates of 1 March 2020 and 30 April 2025, it being stated that the monthly amounts constituting the difference in remuneration which is the subject of the present form of order sought must be paid together with default interest, calculated at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points, and payable from the date each of those respective amounts became due until the date of actual payment;










—


an amount of EUR 275 000 in respect of the material damage subsequent to the date of filing of the present application;










—


an amount of EUR 60 000 in respect of the non-material damage;




and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety, regardless of the outcome of the dispute.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against (i) the Commission’s decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s request of 19 June 2024 (D/333/24) that the defendant continue, with regard to her, to comply with the judgment given in Case T-535/22, relating to Competition COM/1/AD/10/18, in particular by applying to her the rules set out in Administrative Notice No 8 of 10 February 2020 and providing, inter alia, that successful candidates in that competition having the status of official at the time of publication of the results would be classified, with effect from 1 March 2020, in grade AD10 with regard to the positions they then held, (ii) the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2024 appointing the applicant to the AD10 position in DG COMM (Ares (2024)8082038, 14 November 2024) in which she is currently classified, that appointment having taken place following the applicant passing an oral ‘resit’ for the above competition, in so far as that appointment decision indicates that it will ‘take effect’ on 16 November 2024 and does not give the appointment any retroactive effect, (iii) the Commission’s decisions implicitly rejecting the complaints (R/688/24) brought by the applicant on 5 and 6 December 2024, the first of which was brought against the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s request (D/333/24) and the second of which was brought against the above decision of the defendant of 13 November 2024 in so far as was indicated in that complaint, that is to say, in so far as that decision took effect on 16 November 2024 and was devoid of all retroactive effect, and (iv) the substantive decisions taken by the defendant on dates unknown to the applicant and opting implicitly to reject both the request (D/333/24) and the complaints (R/688/24), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the law and, in particular, of the maxim patere legem quam ipse fecisti, as well as breach of the principles of equal treatment, good administration, the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, and legitimate expectations.






—


The applicant complains, in particular, that the defendant unduly refuses to apply to her the rules which it itself adopted, published in Administrative Notice No 8 of 10 February 2020 and on Intracomm and providing that successful candidates having the status of official at the time of publication of the results of the competition would be appointed to grade AD10 with effect from 1 March 2020.










—


She argues that that infringement is made worse by – and also entails a breach of the principle of equal treatment because of – the fact that the other officials who were successful candidates all fully benefited from the above rules, having moreover, in this way, overtaken the applicant, professionally speaking.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU.






—


The applicant complains, in particular, that the defendant, by refusing to attribute even the slightest degree of retroactive effect to her passing the competition, her being placed on the reserve list, or her being appointed to grade AD10 in November 2024 (or by having failed to take any other compensatory measures), has complied only partially with the judgment in Case T-535/22.








– The applicant refers, to that end, to the case-law (in particular to the judgment in Case F-101/09) which specifies how such a judgment should be ‘fully’ complied with.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3640/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)