EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/38

(Case T-179/21)

(2021/C 206/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QN (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the applicant’s CDR (1) of 2019;

—subsidiarily, annul the applicant’s CDR in so far it contains contested comments;

—together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the CDR of 2019;

—order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; and

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its obligation to set objectives in the CDR. The applicant also argues that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty of care and of the principle of good administration.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, breached Article 7(3) of the defendant’s decision of 16 December 2013 (2) and of the defendant’s internal Guidance for RO (3). The applicant further complains that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment and misused its power. It is also alleged that the defendant breached its duty of care and its duty of good administration.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant also complains that the defendant infringed the rules of objectivity and impartiality.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 296(2) of the TFEU. The applicant also argues that the defendant breached Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is also alleged that the defendant breached its duty to state reasons.

(1) Career Development Report.

(2) Commission decision of 16.12.2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations [C (2013) 8985 final].

(3) Commission internal directive ‘Constructive dialogue and fair report: guidance for Reporting Officers’.