CELEX: 62020TN0647
Language: en
Date: 2020-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-647/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Verelst v Council

11.1.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 9/27
            
         
      Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Verelst v Council
      (Case T-647/20)
      (2021/C 9/39)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Jean-Michel Verelst (Eghezée, Belgium) (represented by: C. Molitor, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of his action against Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1117 of 27 July 2020 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2020 L 244, p 18), which appointed Mr Yves Van Den Berge a European Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office as a temporary agent at grade AD 13 for a non-renewable period of six years from 29 July 2020, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules applicable to the appointment of European Public Prosecutors. Those rules are Articles 288, 289, 291 and 296 TFEU, Articles 20, 21 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principles of EU law of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, legality and non-discrimination, Council Regulation (EU) No 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 14(3) and 16(1), (2) and (3) thereof, Article 1 of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1696 of 13 July 2018 on the operating rules of the selection panel provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2018 L 282, p. 8), the operating rules of the selection panel laid down by that implementing decision, in particular Articles VI.2. and VII.2, and the essential procedural requirements. By that plea, the applicant alleges that the contested decision, in so far as it appoints one of the candidates nominated by Belgium to the post of European Public Prosecutor:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              in the first place (first part), has been adopted neither on the basis, nor taking account, of the conclusions drawn by the selection panel after examining the applications and hearing the candidates, set out formally in its reasoned opinion, but on the contrary, in particular, on the basis of a different assessment of the merits of those candidates, carried out within the competent preparatory bodies of the Council, and
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              in the second place (second part), has treated differently the group of candidates nominated by the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland, on the one hand, and the group of candidates nominated by Belgium, Bulgaria and Portugal, on the other hand, the former on the basis of the opinion of the selection panel, as provided for in the regulation, and the latter by the application of a different procedure for assessing the merits of the candidates, not provided for in the regulation, carried out by a body not empowered to do so.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, an infringement of the right to sound administration and a manifest error of assessment. In particular, that plea alleges infringement of Article 296 TFEU, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, infringement of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1939 referred to above, and. in particular, Articles 14(3) and 16(1), (2) and (3) thereof, infringement of Article 1 of Implementing Decision (EU) No 2018/1696 referred to above and infringement of the operating rules of the selection committee laid down by that implementing decision, in particular Articles VI.2. and VII.2, infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, infringement of essential procedural requirements and a manifest error of assessment.
                  In that regard, the applicant complains that the contested decision appoints to the post of European Public Prosecutor, as regards Belgium, the designated candidate, thus giving him preference over the other candidates and, more particularly, over the applicant, which was done on the basis of an analysis of the experience of the appointed candidate in the field of financial crime and international judicial cooperation, and finds that the qualifications and professional experience of that candidate were more suitable for the post of European Public Prosecutor.