12.6.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 205/39
4.
Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the framework agreement signed between the appointing authority of the Court and the applicant, which provides that the decisions of the appointing authority concerning a trade union or professional organisation which is representative and signatory of that agreement cannot be taken without the knowledge of the Registrar, as has happened in the present case.
Action brought on 18 April 2023 — Kivikoski and Others v Council (Case T-202/23) (2023/C 205/44) Language of the case: French Parties Applicants: Ville Kivikoski (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium), Ottavia Maffia (Brussels, Belgium), Peter Pristovnik (Brussels) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer) Defendant: Council of the European Union Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul the decision of 13 July 2022; — annul, in so far as necessary, to the extent that it states the reasons on which the decision of 13 July 2022 is based, the decision to reject the complaint dated 2 February 2023; — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of their action against the decision of the Secretary General of the Council of 13 July 2022 not to promote them for the 2022 promotion exercise, the applicants rely on two pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the contested decision in so far as it is based on an incorrect application of the statutory rules and rates applicable to promotion, which infringes the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and caused a reasonable loss of opportunity for them to be eligible to promotion to grade AST 8. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principles of foreseeability and legal certainty, and due to the fact that they have suffered unlawful unequal treatment, based on their classification to grade AST 7, not provided for by the legislature.