CELEX: 62017TN0487
Language: en
Date: 2017-08-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-487/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — UE v Commission

23.10.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 357/19
            
         Action brought on 3 August 2017 — UE v Commission
   (Case T-487/17)
   (2017/C 357/24)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the European Commission’s decision dated 4 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s requests dated 14 October 2013;
            
         
               —
            
            
               if needed, annul the European Commission’s decision dated 26 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint dated 5 January 2017;
            
         
               —
            
            
               compensate the applicant for the moral and material prejudiced suffered by the fault of the defendant, evaluated at the sum of 120 000 euro (moral harm), 748 800 (loss of earnings), and 576 000 euro (loss of pension);
            
         
               —
            
            
               compensate the applicant for the harm caused by the course and the outcome of the inquiry on the issue of harassment, evaluated at the sum of 50 000 euro;
            
         
               —
            
            
               reimburse the applicant’s incurred 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 violation of the principle of sound administration, violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, violation of the right to be heard and violation of the adversarial principle.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, factual errors and a violation of Article 35, second sentence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.