CELEX: 62016TN0688
Language: en
Date: 2016-09-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-688/16: Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Janssen-Cases v Commission

7.11.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 410/32
            
         Action brought on 28 September 2016 — Janssen-Cases v Commission
   (Case T-688/16)
   (2016/C 410/45)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mercedes Janssen-Cases (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decisions of the Commission of 15 June 2016 to fill the post of the Commission’s mediator by the appointment of another candidate and those rejecting the applicant’s application for that post;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of one hundred thousand euros as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm suffered;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) of Commission Decision C (2002) 601 of 4 March 2002 on the reinforced Mediation Service, since the contested decisions were adopted by the Commission, while its President is alone competent to adopt those decisions, on a proposal from the Director General of the Human Resources and Security Directorate General following an opinion of the Staff Committee.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which establishes the workers’ right to information and consultation, in the present case the right to actual consultation of the Commission staff committee.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging an abuse of power by the Commission in the procedures implemented in order to fill the post of the Commission’s mediator.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and sound administration.