CELEX: 62020TN0587
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-587/20: Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MO v Council

14.12.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 433/55
            
         
      Action brought on 24 September 2020 — MO v Council
      (Case T-587/20)
      (2020/C 433/70)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: MO (represented by: A. Guillerme, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Council of the European Union
      
         Conclusions
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 November 2019 to reassign MO to the Romanian language translation unit;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  declare the conduct of the administration towards her since 2016 unlawful and order the defendant to pay EUR 277 371,36 for the harm suffered;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, concerning the annulment of the decision to reassign her to the Romanian language translation unit, alleges infringement of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials. This plea is divided into two parts.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              First part, alleging that the reassignment decision respects neither the interests of the service, the interests of the applicant nor the principle of equivalence of posts;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              Second part, alleging failure to observe the right to be heard prior to the adoption of the decision to reassign her.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, concerning the annulment of the decision to reassign her to the Romanian language translation unit, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. This plea is divided into two parts.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              First part, alleging breach of the right to a prior hearing in not communicating to the applicant the elements allowing her to defend herself properly;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              Second part, alleging errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment vitiating the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, concerning the compensation of the harm assessed, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the procedure, at EUR 277 371,36, and alleging unlawful conduct and decisions on the part of the Council. This plea is divided into five parts.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              First part, alleging unlawful conduct on the part of the administration during and after the administrative inquiry into acts of harassment towards the applicant;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              Second part, alleging that the reassignment decision behind the harm for which the applicant is seeking compensation is unlawful;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              Third part, alleging that the applicant was not attested in the 2014 reform of the Staff Regulations;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              Fourth part, alleging breach of the applicant’s medical data;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              Fifth part, alleging that the 2019 appraisal exercise was unlawful.