CELEX: 62020TN0555
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-555/20: Action brought on 3 September 2020 — QB v ECB

26.10.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 359/14
            
         
      Action brought on 3 September 2020 — QB v ECB
      (Case T-555/20)
      (2020/C 359/19)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: QB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Central Bank
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the present action admissible and well-founded;
               
            consequently:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the staff report for 2015, drawn up on 8 October 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 7 February 2020 and 24 June 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and complaint respectively;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all 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, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports, in particular in so far as there was no new appraisal in relation to the applicant, but simply a copy and paste of the appraisal in the initial staff report.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports and of the procedure, and infringement of the duty of care, in particular in so far as the applicant’s staff report does not identify any suggestions for improvement and does not set objectives in the manner required by the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports.
               
            Third plea in law, alleging that the contested staff report is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in that report.