CELEX: 62019TN0052
Language: en
Date: 2019-01-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-52/19: Action brought on 28 January 2019 — AH v Eurofound

25.3.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/43
            
         
      Action brought on 28 January 2019 — AH v Eurofound
      (Case T-52/19)
      (2019/C 112/52)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: AH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul the decision of 22 March 2018 of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions notified to the applicant through his legal representative by a letter from the legal representative of that agency, the law firm Beauchamps, in that it rejects the applicant’s complaint alleging breach of the rules on the protection of private and personal data, his request for an investigation into that breach and his claim for compensation lodged on 2 February 2018 through his legal representative;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the data breach and the rejection of the application lodged on 2 February 2018;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful in that it was not taken by the competent appointing authority but by an external law firm with no mandate or power to that effect.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of sound administration, the duty to provide assistance and Articles 22 and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) on the ground that the defendant rejected the application without conducting an administrative investigation.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging inter alia infringement of the duty to state reasons, the rights of the defence and, in particular, the right to a fair hearing and the duty of care.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law alleging infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and the applicable provisions regarding the right to protection of personal data.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law alleging conflict of interest and infringement of the duty of objectivity, impartiality and independence of public administrations.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law alleging misuse of power.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Seventh plea in law alleging infringement of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the confidentiality afforded to the trade union activities in which any worker may take part.