CELEX: 62017TN0780
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-780/17: Action brought on 29 November 2017 — US v ECB

12.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 52/34
            
         Action brought on 29 November 2017 — US v ECB
   (Case T-780/17)
   (2018/C 052/46)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: US (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Central Bank
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare this action admissible and well-founded;
            
         In consequence:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the 2016 staff report (covering the period from 1 September 2015 to 1 September 2016) and the decision dated 15 December 2016 on the Annual salary and bonus review (‘ASBR’) for 2016, served on the applicant on 30 November 2016 and 9 January 2017 respectively;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the ECB of 3 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s requests of 15 February 2017 and 9 March 2017 for administrative review;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the EBC of 12 September 2017, served on the applicant on 19 September 2017, rejecting his claim brought on 7 July 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Award damages for the losses suffered;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law as regards the application for annulment of the 2016 staff report.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the applicant’s staff report merely sets out general, repetitive and circular criticisms.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested report.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power, harassment suffered by the applicant and infringement of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity committed by the defendant when drawing up the contested report.
            
         The applicant also raises a plea in law alleging the unlawfulness of the guidelines for the ASBR and infringement of the principle of legal certainty as regards the decision concerning the 2016 ASBR.