CELEX: 62021TN0677
Language: en
Date: 2021-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-677/21: Action brought on 18 October 2021 — TL v Commission

13.12.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 502/40
            
         
      Action brought on 18 October 2021 — TL v Commission
      (Case T-677/21)
      (2021/C 502/60)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the applicant’s career development report (‘CDR’) for 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  subsidiarily, annul the CDR in so far it contains contested comments;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the CDR;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the compensation of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; and
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that since no objectives have been fixed for 2019, the defendant could not conduct a proper and fair appraisal of the applicant’s performance in 2019. It is alleged that this lack of objectives has resulted in manifest errors of appreciation, in a breach of the duty of care and of the principle of good administration.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and violated its Guidance for Reporting Officers. It is also alleged that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and misused its powers. The applicant also alleges that the defendant breached its duty of care and its duty of good administration.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 292(2) TFUE in conjunction with Article 25(2) of Staff Regulations and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.