CELEX: 62020TN0453
Language: en
Date: 2020-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-453/20: Action brought on 14 July 2020 — KZ v Commission

31.8.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 287/41
            
         
      Action brought on 14 July 2020 — KZ v Commission
      (Case T-453/20)
      (2020/C 287/61)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: KZ (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the list of promoted officials adopted by Administrative Notice No 32-2019/14.11.2019 of 14 November 2019 inasmuch as it does not include the name of the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of the General Implementing Provisions (‘the GIPs’) for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant contests the interpretation given by the Commission, which considers that Article 40(3) of the Staff Regulations means that an official who is on leave on personal grounds on the date when the promotion decision is adopted by the appointing authority is not eligible for the promotion exercise concluded thereby. On the contrary, the applicant puts forward a teleological and systematic interpretation of Article 40(3) of the Staff Regulations and submits that the Commission, by its interpretation, infringes the right to promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. In his view, the Commission also infringes the principle of legal certainty, the principle that the statutory provisions of which those GIPs form part should be consistent, and the principle of equal treatment in terms of career development under Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations. Lastly, he complains that the consequences of implementing the GIPs are illogical and disproportionate.