Case T-604/25: Action brought on 1 September 2025 – UU v Court of Justice of the European Union
Date: 2025-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European convention, European official, Slovenia, criminal proceedings, defamation, equal treatment, indemnification, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), whistleblowing








C_202505720EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5720


3.11.2025






Action brought on 1 September 2025 – UU v Court of Justice of the European Union


(Case T-604/25)

(C/2025/5720)
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-1/25 of the committee of the General Court with jurisdiction to rule on complaints (‘the Complaints Committee’) of 22 May 2025 (‘the first contested decision’);










—


annul the decision of the assistance committee of 30 January 2025 which is confirmed by the first contested decision (‘the second contested decision’);










—


order the defendant to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered, to be determined ex aequo et bono and provisionally estimated by the applicant at EUR 20 000;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The first plea alleges a manifest error of assessment concerning the admissibility of the complaint.










—


The applicant submits that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in considering inadmissible a complaint having the same subject-matter as a previous request for assistance, rejected by a decision which has become final, where there has been a new development likely to substantially alter her legal position, such as the summons to a hearing in the context of a criminal trial, exposing the applicant to a risk of criminal conviction (including a custodial sentence), which did not exist at the time of the previous summons to a hearing for an attempt at conciliation. The administration is required to take those new circumstances into account carefully and assess the new application in the light of them. The new and substantial nature of the development justifying a review of a final decision must be assessed on the basis of whether it is inherently likely to modify the applicant’s legal position, and not on the basis of whether there is any other ground for rejecting the complaint. Such a ground could justify a rejection of the new application on the merits, but not its inadmissibility.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, concerning the absence of a link between the criminal proceedings and the performance of duties.










—


The applicant states that the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and misrepresentation in that they hold that criminal proceedings for defamation concerning the applicant’s statements, contained in a letter addressed to the national authorities in charge of a procedure for the appointment of a judge and to the President of the Court, according to which she had been the victim of physical and psychological violence by her hierarchical superior in the performance of their duties, concern an intervention in those proceedings outside the performance of her duties, and therefore excluded the existence of a link between the criminal proceedings and the performance of the applicant’s duties, which was necessary in order to give rise to the duty to provide assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. Such a political interpretation distorts the real purpose of the criminal proceedings, which is the alleged defamation, and indirectly the facts that were the subject-matter of the statements.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3)(b) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Articles 18, 56, 57 and 62 of the Istanbul Convention, Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter, the duties of impartiality and fair treatment and Article 41 of the Charter.










—


The applicant maintains, in the first place, that the impossibility of using the evidence necessary for her defence, due to the refusal to authorise her to use the points of the Rosas report concerning that evidence and the refusal to allow her access to the file on the whistleblowing procedure, in addition to the refusal to transfer it, impairs her ability to defend herself in criminal proceedings against her that could lead to a conviction or even a custodial sentence.










—


In the second place, those refusals infringe Articles 18, 56(1)(d) and 62 of the Istanbul Convention, in force on the date of adoption of the contested decisions. The refusal to contact the Slovenian authorities also directly infringes Article 62 thereof. The rejection of the request for financial and technical assistance constitutes an infringement of Article 57 of that convention.










—


In the third place, in view of the factual context of the present case, the contested decisions give rise to extremely serious discrimination against the applicant, in breach of Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter.










—


In the fourth place, the contested decisions breach the duties of impartiality and fair treatment and the duty to take into account in a correct manner all the relevant factors, including the facts relating to the subject-matter of the Slovenian criminal proceedings and the link between that subject-matter and the exercise of the applicant’s duties and, consequently, also infringe Article 41(1) of the Charter.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5720/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)