CELEX: 62020TN0599
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-599/20: Action brought on 22 September 2020 — YG v Commission

7.12.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 423/39
            
         
      Action brought on 22 September 2020 — YG v Commission
      (Case T-599/20)
      (2020/C 423/56)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the European Commission dated 14 November 2019 not to include the applicant on the list of promoted officials for 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision dated 11 June 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of the European Commission dated 14 November 2019 not to include the applicant on the list of promoted officials; and,
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the reimbursement of the applicant’s incurred legal costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 45 of S.R. — Manifest errors of assessment — absence of comparative assessment:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              regarding both the evaluation of the applicant’s appraisal reports and the method of the comparative assessment ((i) on the absence of any comparative assessment and (ii) on the lack of comparative assessment with staff members from the same DG and of the same grade).
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 25, second indent, of S.R. (duty to state reasons).