CELEX: 62019TN0605
Language: en
Date: 2019-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-605/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 — EP v Commission

11.11.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 383/65
            
         
      Action brought on 9 September 2019 — EP v Commission
      (Case T-605/19)
      (2019/C 383/74)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: EP (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 under the 2018 promotion procedure;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         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 an inadequate statement of reasons provided in the reply rejecting the complaint, in particular having regard to the fact that the Joint Promotions Committee recommended that the applicant be promoted.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the Appointing Authority inasmuch as it did not actually carry out an examination of the comparative merits of all the officials eligible for promotion.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated, in any event, by manifest errors of assessment, on the basis of the statement of grounds available for that decision.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24b of the Staff Regulations and of the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the applicant was penalised on account of the staff representation duties he performs.