CELEX: 62021TN0603
Language: en
Date: 2021-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-603/21: Action brought on 14 September 2021 — WO v EPPO

20.12.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 513/29
            
         
      Action brought on 14 September 2021 — WO v EPPO
      (Case T-603/21)
      (2021/C 513/44)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: WO (represented by: V. Vitkovskis, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  under Article 270 TFEU, annul the unfounded and illegal decision 028/2021 of the EPPO College on the rejection of the applicant’s candidacy for the function of European Delegated Prosecutor;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the EPPO to pay the applicant compensation for the violation of his personal data protection, the unfair appointment proceedings and the illegal decision to reject his candidacy to the post of European Delegated Prosecutor.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based only on presumptions and lacks proper reasoning.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that fictitious information concerning the applicant is contained in the contested decision.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on illegally obtained personal data relating to the applicant.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s personal data have been violated by the EPPO, including in relation to some data in the decision.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is linked to and based upon the disciplinary sanction, applied to the applicant more than fifteen years ago. There is no legal system and/or act in the European Union that allows administrative offences/disciplinary misconduct to be considered as relevant after fifteen years have passed.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that none of the arguments provided by the applicant were taken into account. They were ignored.
               
            
                  7.
               
               
                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the appointment procedure has been violated by applying to the applicant additional criteria and by assessing him over a longer period, compared to the other nominees. Thus, the principle of the equal treatment of all nominees was violated.
               
            
                  8.
               
               
                  Eighth plea in law, alleging that a non-existing legal act was applied to the applicant in the context of the rejection of his candidacy.
               
            
                  9.
               
               
                  Ninth plea in law, alleging that the principle of sincere cooperation between the Member State and the EU institution was also violated by the EPPO. The opinion of the Member State institution that nominated the person to the post of the European Delegated Prosecutor was ignored. The EPPO, it is argued, also improperly reassessed the nominated person’s eligibility criteria.