Case T-540/25: Action brought on 6 August 2025 – DV v Council and Others
Date: 2025-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU police mission, Palestine, conflict of interest, legality, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff assessment, temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_202504988EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4988


22.9.2025






Action brought on 6 August 2025 – DV v Council and Others


(Case T-540/25)

(C/2025/4988)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DV (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European External Action Service, European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul:






—


the decision of 19 May 2025 (notified to the applicant on 27 May 2025), by which the Head of Mission rejected the applicant’s appeal lodged under Article 7 of the Performance and Development Standard Operating Procedure and confirmed the decision not to request the extension of the contract;










—


the negative recommendation of the Appeals Board, adopted on 18 May 2025, on the appeal submitted by the applicant under Article 7 of the Performance and Development Standard Operating Procedure;










—


the decision of 18 April 2025, by which the Head of Mission decided not to request the extension of the applicant’s secondment; and










—


the form adopted on 19 March 2025 by the Deputy Head of Mission of EUPOL COPPS finalising the applicant’s Performance Improvement Plan process





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First the applicant raises exception of illegality, alleging that Article 7 of the Standard Operating Procedure on the Performance and Development Process infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;










2.


In the alternative, the applicant invokes second plea in law, alleging that the Civilian Operations Commander should have acted as the appellate authority in the specific circumstances of the present case, due to the conflict of interest affecting the Head of Mission;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement – the Head of Mission failed to properly exercise her role as the applicant’s second Line Manager;










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Head of Mission lacked the competence to adopt the Decision of 18 April 2025 due to a conflict of interest – infringement of Article 41 of the Charter;










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging error of fact regarding the existence of the form corresponding to Performance Improvement Plan meeting A; in the alternative, infringement of the right to be heard;










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Decision of 18 April 2025 infringes the applicant’s right to be heard and fails to establish the facts it relies upon;










7.


Seventh plea in law, contending that the ground alleging underperformance by the applicant is vitiated by errors of assessment and of fact;










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging error of assessment – the applicant was not provided a meaningful opportunity to participate in the Performance Improvement Plan process;










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging failure to take into account all relevant elements;










10.


Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard;










11.


Eleventh plea in law, alleging violation of the right to good administration/right to be heard;










12.


Twelfth plea in law, alleging errors of fact and of assessment;










13.


Thirteenth plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements;










14.


Fourteenth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4988/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)