CELEX: 62019TN0130
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-130/19: Action brought on 26 February 2019 — Spadafora v Commission

15.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 139/104
            
         
      Action brought on 26 February 2019 — Spadafora v Commission
      (Case T-130/19)
      (2019/C 139/106)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Sergio Spadafora (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the General Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul the decision, adopted on 26 November 2018 by the Director-General of OLAF, by which the complaint lodged by the applicant on 24 July 2018 was rejected;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Annul the decision, adopted by the acting Director-General of OLAF in his capacity as appointing authority, concerning the appointment of the Head of the Unit OLAF.C4 (‘Legal Advice’) as from 1 June 2018;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicant for material and non-material damage;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The present action is brought principally against the decision appointing the Head of the Legal Advice Unit of the Investigation Support Directorate of OLAF as of 1 June 2018, and the decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the appointment decision.
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) and (2) of Commission Decision C (2016) 3288 final.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The applicant claims in this regard that the assessments contained in the reports of the external consultancy firm were not taken into account by the appointing authority, as required by Article 8(1) of the abovementioned Commission Decision in order for there to have been a lawful procedure for the selection of a Head of Unit.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement of impartiality.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The applicant claims in this regard that Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was not complied with in the present case, since the decision appointing the Head of Unit in question, rather than being the lawful result of a fair selection process, was the objective pursued from the outset by the defendant’s unlawful plan. In the defendant’s unlawful plan, it is possible to identify two principal elements: (i) favouritism towards one of the applicant’s competitors; (ii) debasement of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 5 December 2017, in Case T-250/16 P.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging that, although, under Article 8(2)(a) of Commission Decision C (2016) 3288 final, ‘before deciding on the appointment, the Director-General concerned [is to] consult the Member of the Commission responsible for the department’, the appointing authority did not follow this consultation procedure in the present case, agreeing, instead, with one or more individuals on the candidate to appoint as Head of Unit.