CELEX: 62021TN0613
Language: en
Date: 2021-10-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-613/21: Action brought on 19 October 2021 — XH v Commission

24.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 37/34
            
         
      Action brought on 19 October 2021 — XH v Commission
      (Case T-613/21)
      (2022/C 37/47)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: XH (represented by: E. Auleytner, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 4 December 2020 concerning the refusal of the applicant’s request for assistance and the decision of the Appointing Authority in response to the complaint filed by the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of 26 May 2021 concerning the opening of the invalidity procedure and the decision of the Appointing Authority in response to the complaint filed by the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  compensate the applicant for loss and damages;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging error of law and the irregularity of the contested procedure: the violation of Article 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular violation of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration contained in Article 41 of the Charter.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Articles 12a, 24, and 59-60 of the Staff Regulations, by setting clearly unattainable objectives requiring the applicant to provide work during sickness leave with 100 % incapacity for work.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations in the light of Articles 12a and 24 thereof — opening of the invalidity procedure without the required amount of the sick leave at the moment of the opening.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.