CELEX: 62018TN0518
Language: en
Date: 2018-08-31 00:00:00
Title: Case T-518/18: Action brought on 31 August 2018 — YG v Commission

5.11.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 399/41
            
         
      Action brought on 31 August 2018 — YG v Commission
      (Case T-518/18)
      (2018/C 399/56)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul, first, the defendant’s decision dated 13 November 2017 not to include the applicant in the list of promoted officials;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul, subsequently, the defendant’s decision dated 17 May 2018 rejecting his complaint against the decision dated 13 November 2017;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s incurred legal costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The contested decision was based on certain manifest errors of assessment; furthermore, it failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not prove that an examination of the applicant’s merits was carried out in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration as protected by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by virtue of its lack of diligence in the drafting and substantiation of the contested decision.