Case T-408/25: Action brought on 25 June 2025 – JS v Parliament
Date: 2025-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, demotion, indemnification, pay scale, principle of proportionality, professional experience, reassignment, staff regulations (EU)








C_202505347EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5347


13.10.2025






Action brought on 25 June 2025 – JS v Parliament


(Case T-408/25)

(C/2025/5347)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: JS (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the defendant of 22 July 2024 demoting the applicant and substantially modifying his employment conditions;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision dismissing the complaint made by the applicant on 21 March 2025;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of non-material damage;










—


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 breach of the right to be heard.
The applicant submits that the contested decision (set out in an additional clause to the applicant’s contract) was adopted on 22 July 2024 by the AECE without him being invited to submit any observations and that, moreover, he was unaware of the AECE’s intention to demote him and to modify his employment conditions substantially.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations and Articles 10 and 15 of the CEOS and failure to observe the principle of proportionality.
The applicant submits that the defendant failed to comply with Article 10 of the CEOS and Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, by deciding, first, to reassign the applicant to a post in a lower grade (thus undermining the principle of equivalence between the grade and the post). Next, he submits that the defendant did not take account of the applicant’s professional experience and that the CEOS does not provide for the possibility of deciding to assign an agent to a lower grade by way of an additional clause.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.
The applicant states that the contested decision does not provide any explanation as to why it decided, first, to assign the applicant to the post of ‘Administrator advising on policy issues’ rather than to the post of ‘Head of Unit’, which he had occupied just before becoming Secretary-General of the group. Nor does the defendant explain why it was necessary to demote the applicant, and does not provide any indication of or reason for the possible urgency in reassigning the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.
The applicant submits that his future prospects within the parliamentary group are affected – he did not receive any tasks and those tasks would have necessarily fallen significantly short of those corresponding to his grade and post. Lastly, his financial situation is seriously impacted.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5347/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)