Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/4599

29.7.2024

(Case T-246/24)

(C/2024/4599)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: RY (represented by: G. Trantas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—award him the amount of EUR 1 000 000,00 (one million euro) for the harm to, and permanent adverse effects on, his health;

—order the Commission to pay him the equivalent of the salary and allowances that he would have received as a member of the permanent staff at the Commission at grade and salary scale AD12, from 1 November 2019 until his retirement in 2028;

—order the Commission to pay him the amount that was unlawfully subtracted from his remuneration from the European Parliament during the unlawful interruption of his employment relationship with the European Commission and which is an integral part of the compensation due to him on account of the unlawful interruption of his employment relationship, according to the judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1);

—award the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 1 000 000,00 (one million euro) for the non-material harm which he suffered and continues to suffer due to the Commission’s unlawful conduct;

—order the publication, in high-visibility written and electronic media in broad circulation in Brussels, of a retraction of the defamation of his personality;

—order the Commission to pay the legal costs and lawyers’ fees.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea, alleging that, on account of his unlawful and culpable dismissal – annulled, in the meantime, by the Court by judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1) – not only did his professional situation deteriorate, but his health suffered direct consequences. The reasons for his dismissal, relating to his presumed professional incompetence and the breakdown in the relationship of trust between him and the European Commission – which are, in addition, completely arbitrary and unjustified – are degrading to his personality, primarily in relation to his professional calibre and his credibility, and makes it extremely difficult for him and those around him to apply for positions of responsibility within Community institutions.

2.Second plea, alleging that although the Commission gave him, following the annulment of his unlawful dismissal, the right to participate in internal competition COM/2/AD12/18, the structure and requirements of the competition made it impossible objectively for him to succeed. These difficulties consisted in the fact that, first, the time available to him to apply for the competition and to build his online candidate profile (talent screener), on the sole basis of which he was assessed, was four days only, while other candidates had more than six weeks. Moreover, the period during which he was not in service due to his unlawful dismissal was not counted as a period of actual service and he was not awarded the corresponding points in order to receive a good assessment and be selected. The criteria relating to his actual seniority and experience were the only criteria taken into consideration for his assessment, as established and confirmed by the European Commission in the letter of 17 May 2019 rejecting the applicant’s requests.

3.Third plea, by which the applicant claims payment of the amounts which the European Commission unlawfully failed to pay – arguing that those amounts were paid by way of the remuneration received by the applicant for his employment at the European Parliament during the period in which he was unlawfully dismissed by the European Commission – and which are an integral part of the compensation due to him on account of the unlawful interruption of his employment relationship, according to the judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1). In any event, those amounts, which were not paid to him unlawfully, were subtracted from remuneration received for work actually done, in various services and functions, which, by their type and content, are not similar and cannot be subtracted from the payment due. That payment, which much be calculated and paid in its entirety, is compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant and also functions as a penalty for his unlawful dismissal, according to the judgment of 10 January 2019, RY v Commission (T-160/17, EU:T:2019:1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4599/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—