Case T-414/25: Action brought on 27 June 2025 – UF v Commission
Date: 2025-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of proportionality, reassignment, security services, servant (EU), termination of employment, work contract








C_202504478EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4478


18.8.2025






Action brought on 27 June 2025 – UF v Commission


(Case T-414/25)

(C/2025/4478)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UF (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s request to continue to perform the duties of a Close Protection Officer, like all other Close Protection Officers, following the induction of new members of the College of Commissioners;










—


annul the decision rejecting the complaint lodged on 14 March 2025 against the decision of 12 March 2025 implicitly rejecting the applicant’s request to continue to perform the duties of a Close Protection Officer following the induction of new members of the College of Commissioners;










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicant a sum set ex aequo et bono for the non-material damage caused and to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU. The applicant claims that the implementation of the annulment judgment of 8 May 2024, UF v Commission (T-24/23, EU:T:2024:293) was neither fair nor complete since the applicant was not reinstated in duties equivalent to those of a Close Protection Officer. The AECE acted in bad faith to prevent him from participating in the usual procedure for Close Protection Officers to remain in service.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. According to the applicant, the grounds relied on in support of non-renewal (previous professional incidents) are inaccurate, contested and have already been rejected by the Court. In his view, the Commission did not carry out any objective verification of those facts.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. The applicant submits that no proper assessment of his interests was carried out. Furthermore, the administration did not consider an alternative solution to enable the applicant to remain in service as a Close Protection Officer, despite the case-law requiring a balance between the interests of the service and the interests of the staff member.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights. The applicant claims that the Commission’s delaying tactics and lack of transparency, noted by the President of the General Court in his order in Case T-502/24 R II, demonstrates an abuse of process and a circumvention of the judgment of 8 May 2024.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and proportionality. The applicant claims that he is the only Close Protection Officer who did not remain in service despite his wish, while all his colleagues remained in service. There is no objective justification that would legitimise such a disparity.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of power. The applicant submits that the refusal to retain him in service is based on a clear intention to remove him from close protection duties, unrelated to the needs of the service or an objective assessment of his ability.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4478/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)