19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/20

(Case T-735/16)

(2016/C 475/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CX (Bordeaux, France) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Declare the action admissible and well-founded;

—In consequence:

—annul the decision of 18 December 2015, reference Ares(2015)5952489, insofar as it imposes on the applicant a reduction in his remuneration;

—annul the decision of 12 July 2016, reference HR.E.2/CB/sa/Ares(2016), served on the same date, by which the Appointing Authority rejects that part of the applicant’s claim, which he ground on 17 March 2016 under reference R/170/16, relating to the decision to reduce his remuneration;

—order the defendant to pay the sums wrongfully withheld, together with legal penalties and interest;

—order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

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 infringement of the Staff Regulations of Officials, in particular of Article 24(1) of Annex IX to those Staff Regulations, which was committed by the Commission’s Appointing Authority by failing to set out in its decision the amount of the retention which it intended to make from the applicant’s remuneration.

2.Second plea in law, alleging failure to observe the obligation to state reasons as regards the actual grounds of that reduction in the remuneration, a failure which forms the basis of the unequal treatment suffered by the applicant.

3.Third plea in law, alleging an abuse of process and a misuse of powers, an abuse of office and of power, insofar as the contested decision constitutes a disguised disciplinary sanction.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the reasonable time principle, the principles of good faith and of sound administration, inasmuch as the matters raised by the defendant against the applicant date from 2001 and 2003, that is to say, more than 14 and 12 years before the contested decision.