4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/48

(Case T-293/22)

(2022/C 257/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PB (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the President of the SRB of 16 July 2021 not to reclassify the applicant at the end of the 2021 reclassification exercise;

—in so far as necessary, annul the SRB’s decision of 14 February 2022 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 15 October 2021 against the decision not to reclassify him;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rules applicable to the implementation of the reclassification exercise as provided for by Article 5 of the general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (the ‘GIP’).

2.Second plea in law, alleging an erroneous analysis of Article 4 of the GIP and an erroneous assessment of the levels of responsibility with respect to a function and not with respect to a grade.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of procedure of the Joint Reclassification Committee and of the obligation to draw up a report relating to each reclassification exercise.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to documents and infringement of the principles of openness, predictability and legal certainty, and the existence of — at least objective — bias due to the lack of information at multiple stages of the procedure.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and errors in the list of factors assessed.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Annex II to the GIP and the target average set.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s file, his merits and his seniority compared with colleagues in the same directorate.