7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/50

(Case T-590/22)

(2022/C 424/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adrian Sorin Cristescu (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—annul the decision of 17 November 2021 which imposed on the applicant the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step for a period of six months;

—order the European Commission to pay the costs and to pay one euro to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment which render the contested decision unlawful. He relies, in that regard, on the fact that the alleged misconduct on which the contested decision is based has not been established and that that is apparent, inter alia, from the unanimous opinion given by the Disciplinary Board.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. The applicant relies, in particular, on the right to be heard, in so far as the members of the Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC), to whom the powers of the appointing authority (‘the Appointing Authority’) were delegated during the procedure and who drafted the inquiry report, the conclusions of which were questioned by the Disciplinary Board, then played a decisive role in the adoption of the decision taken, in a non-transparent way, by the Appointing Authority.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.