5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/29

(Case T-17/16)

(2016/C 326/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the present action admissible and well founded;

accordingly:

—hold that the European Commission is non-contractually liable on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and of the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU;

—order the production of the documents declared confidential by the Commission and providing the necessary basis for the exclusion decision;

—order payment of compensation for the non-material harm resulting from the Commission’s wrongful conduct, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;

—order the Commission to publish a letter of apology to the applicant and to reinstate him within Team Europe;

—order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging unlawful acts committed by the Commission and constituting serious breaches of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, thus triggering the Commission’s non-contractual responsibility. In the first place, the applicant considers that the Commission failed properly to inform him of the allegations and evidence put forward against him and did not give him the opportunity effectively to formulate his observations with respect to them before the exclusion decision was taken, contrary to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the general principles of good administration, respect for the rights of the defence and Article 16 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. In the second place, the Commission failed carefully and impartially to examine all the evidence relevant to the present case before deciding to exclude the applicant from the Team Europe network, contrary to the principle of diligence laid down in Article 41 of the Charter and to Articles 8, 9 and 11 of the Code. In doing so, the Commission also infringed the principle of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence laid down in Article 48 of the Charter. In the third place, the applicant maintains that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, making vague and, moreover, incorrect allegations, contrary to Article 41(2) of the Charter and Article 18 of the Code. Lastly, the decision taken by the Commission is, having regard to the circumstances of the case, manifestly unfounded and disproportionate.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered real and certain loss as a result of the alleged conduct of the Commission in calling into question the applicant’s moral and professional integrity.