CELEX: 62021TN0314
Language: en
Date: 2021-06-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-314/21: Action brought on 4 June 2021 — TA v Parliament

19.7.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 289/50
            
         
      Action brought on 4 June 2021 — TA v Parliament
      (Case T-314/21)
      (2021/C 289/67)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: TA (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the present action admissible;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2019 and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of Mr Welle’s decision of 29 March 2021 in response to the complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all the 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 an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), Article 5(2) and Article 6(11) of the internal rules on the application of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, and infringement of Articles 15(2) and 87(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. The applicant submits, in particular, that, by failing to take into account the absence of objectives set for 2019, the assessors disregarded the abovementioned provisions.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging material inaccuracies in the facts which gave rise to a manifest error of assessment.