CELEX: 62016TN0850
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-850/16: Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QE v Eurojust

6.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 38/43
            
         Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QE v Eurojust
   (Case T-850/16)
   (2017/C 038/57)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: QE (Gouvy, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Cherif, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Eurojust
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               order, as a preliminary matter, that the minutes of the meeting of 17 March 2016 be produced to the Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decisions of 22 April 2016 and of 18 May 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order Eurojust to pay damages for the harm suffered by QE, estimated, subject to upward or downward revision in the course of the proceedings, at EUR 20 000 (twenty thousand euros), plus interest from 8 July 2016 when the complaint was lodged, as calculated on the basis of the rate applicable during the relevant period set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two points;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order Eurojust to pay all of the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea: absence of a legal basis, infringement of the right to be heard and infringement of the principle of proportionality such as to vitiate the decision of 22 April 2016.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea: infringement of Article 23(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, a manifest error of assessment and infringements of the principle of proportionality and of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials such as to vitiate the decision of 18 May 2016.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea: misuse of powers and conflict of interest such as to vitiate the two contested decisions.