CELEX: 62022TN0022
Language: en
Date: 2022-01-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-22/22: Action brought on 13 January 2022 — AL v Council

7.3.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 109/28
            
         
      Action brought on 13 January 2022 — AL v Council
      (Case T-22/22)
      (2022/C 109/38)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  primarily, annul the defendant’s decision of 27 September 2021 by which the applicant was removed from his post;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  reinstate the applicant as a GSC official on his previous post and position;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  resend the file to the GSC for the reopening of the disciplinary procedure in accordance with Article 28 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations in the light of all the facts established in the Appointing Authority decisions taken after the date of the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  raise, of its own motion, any other issue of public interest that it sees fit;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on thirteen pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging the violation by the Council of Article 22(1) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and maladministration.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of the Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty is not proportionate to the nature of the presumed misconduct (regarding the allowances received in respect of the applicant’s mother as dependent child) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from a manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty imposed is not proportionate to the nature of the misconduct (regarding the allowances received in consideration of the foster care of A and B) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(a) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the penalty imposed is not proportionate to the nature of the misconduct (regarding the requests submitted in 2014 for dependent child status for C and D) and to the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(b) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the presumed misconduct did not adversely affect the integrity, reputation, or interests of the GSC; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(c) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the misconduct did not involve intentional actions but rather negligence; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment and violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations for absence of any intention to mislead the administration.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Seventh plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(d) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the motivation of the misconduct was principally the children’s best interests and wellbeing; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  8.
               
               
                  Eighth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(e) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the applicant’s grade and seniority were moderate to low; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  9.
               
               
                  Ninth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(g) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the level of the applicant’s responsibilities and duties was moderate to low; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  10.
               
               
                  Tenth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the misconduct did not involve repeated action or behaviour; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  11.
               
               
                  Eleventh plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 10(i) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in so far as (i) the conduct of the applicant through the course of his career was irreproachable; (ii) the contested decision lacks motivation; (iii) the contested decision disregards the presumption of innocence; and (iv) the contested decision results from manifest error of assessment.
               
            
                  12.
               
               
                  Twelfth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle of good administration.
               
            
                  13.
               
               
                  Thirteenth plea in law, alleging the violation of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and his dependants.