21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/35

(Case T-315/23)

(2023/C 296/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare admissible the present application;

—order the production from file number ORG/130/22 and/or from any other file related to the concerned promotion exercise of:

—the applicant’s individual comparative evaluation used for the taking of the decision for non-promotion;

—the precise methodology used for the carrying out of the aforesaid individual comparative evaluation;

—material evidence that the same methodology has been applied universally across all officials who he was compared to, and notably the officials who have been promoted;

—the report sent by the Advisory Committee on Promotion for the function group AST, career path 1-9 (‘the ACP’), to the Appointing Authority (‘the AA’) on 12 July 2022 and the list of the officials proposed for promotion;

—all the documents related to the concerned promotion exercise which are related directly or indirectly to the applicant, with the personal information related to third parties redacted as appropriate.

—annul the Council of the European Union General Secretariat Internal Note of 6 March 2023 referenced Ariane 1250 in so far as the name of the applicant is not included in the promotion list;

—declare as valid both the initial list proposed by the ACP to the AA on 12 July 2022 of the ASTs proposed for promotion (which includes the name of the applicant as proposed for promotion), and the modified list proposed by the ACP to the AA and adopted and published by the AA on 18 July 2022, with the result being 65 AST4s promoted to AST5 (instead of 64 promotion possibilities) and in compensation to order the AA to deduct one promotion possibility (AST4 to AST5) from the possibilities of promotion for a future promotion exercise;

—order the AA and Payment Master Office to pay to the applicant the difference between the AST4 and AST5 salary from 1 January 2022;

—raise, of its own motion, any other issue of public interest that it sees fit;

—order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an abuse of power and the violation notably, but not only, of the provisions of Article 54 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and of the principle of legitimate expectations in so far as the Appointing Authority pressured the Advisory Committee on Promotions for function group AST (career path 1-9, grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) to modify the list of officials proposed to be promoted.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle of good administration in the conduct of the concerned promotion exercise which adversely affected the applicant, leading to the non-inclusion of his name in the list of promoted officials.

3.Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle ‘non bis in idem’.