CELEX: 62018TN0077
Language: en
Date: 2018-02-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-77/18: Action brought on 12 February 2018 — VE v ESMA

16.4.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 134/26
            
         Action brought on 12 February 2018 — VE v ESMA
   (Case T-77/18)
   (2018/C 134/37)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: VE (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the present appeal admissible and founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the applicant’s 2016 appraisal report in so far as it assesses the applicant’s performance as ‘unsatisfactory’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               together with, and so far as necessary, annul the decision of ESMA of 6 November 2017 which rejects the applicant’s complaint;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant, evaluated ex aequo et bono to 10,000 Euros; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred by his lawyers for the present appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               Plea of illegality in that the appraisal manual has been adopted by ESMA without having been submitted beforehand to the Staff Committee in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Breach of Article 43(1) of the Staff Regulations and Appraisal Manual in that the defendant made several manifest errors of assessment:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           manifest errors of assessment in relation to the main activities of the applicant as regard the criteria ‘Efficiency’, ‘Abilities’ and ‘Conduct’; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           as regard the errors of assessment committed by the defendant in relation to the other activities of the applicant.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Breach of the duty of care and of good administration as regards the applicant’s health problems and as regard the lack of guidance provided to the applicant and adverse working conditions and the absence of adequate trainings.