Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/4866

12.8.2024

(Case T-321/24)

(C/2024/4866)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: EG (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the Executive Director of 15 September 2023 to suspend the applicant from his duties;

—annul the decision of the Executive Director of 22 November 2023 not to reclassify the applicant in Grade AD 11;

—order Europol to pay the applicant EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm caused and 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 Executive Director did not have powers to adopt the decision to suspend the applicant from his duties, in the light of the manifest conflict of interests on her part.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the position of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) was not taken into account or disclosed to the applicant.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration, inasmuch as the preliminary assessment of the applicant’s file was entrusted to an agent who had a manifest conflict of interests. His direct superior in fact also handled this matter despite having a conflict of interests. Furthermore, the decision to reject the complaint was made by a committee that did not offer the guarantees of impartiality and neutrality required in the light of the particular circumstances of the present case.

4.Fourth plea in law, concerning the decision not to reclassify the applicant in the higher grade in the 2023 reclassification exercise, alleging a manifest error of assessment, on the grounds that the merits of the applicant were greater than those of the agent in the same grade who was reclassified in the higher grade. According to the applicant, that decision also fails to apply Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, applicable by analogy, since the subsidiary criterion [of the type of contract held] is not only not mentioned in the applicable ‘Manual’, which provides that the only subsidiary criterion that may be taken into account is that of seniority, but its application is in addition manifestly incorrect since only the contracts of agents who have demonstrated a consistently high level of performance can be renewed for an indefinite period, a circumstance that cannot justify the refusal to reclassify the applicant.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4866/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—