CELEX: 62021TN0728
Language: en
Date: 2021-11-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-728/21: Action brought on 5 November 2021 — LW v Commission

10.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 11/38
            
         
      Action brought on 5 November 2021 — LW v Commission
      (Case T-728/21)
      (2022/C 11/53)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: LW (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the defendant’s decision to move the applicant inside the same Unit to a different post;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s contested decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the reassignment decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the compensation of the non-material damages of 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 six pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision affected the applicant’s legal interests.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision has not been taken by the competent appointing authority.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision have been taken in violation of Article 7(1) of the Staff regulations.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision infringe the principle of duty of care.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision violated the duty to state reasons.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that a conflict of interest issue vitiates the reassignment decision and the contested decision.