Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/737

10.2.2025

(Case T-622/24)

(C/2025/737)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GI (represented by: K. Staszkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 30 August 2024 as well as the applicant’s appraisal report for 2022;

—Order the advancement of the applicant to the step higher than the one held at the moment of the judgment, retroactively as from 1 January 2023, and order payment of the resulting difference of the salary;

—Order the Commission to pay EUR 12 000 for the material damage caused by the loss of the opportunity to be promoted to AD 9 in 2022 and 2023;

—Order the Commission to pay EUR 12 000 for the moral prejudice of the applicant;

—Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by judging the applicant’s appraisal as unsatisfactory.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the 2022 appraisal report as well as the Appointing Authority decision are not sufficiently motivated.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the support plan for 2021 was implemented in violation of Article 5 of the Commission Decision of 4 October 2019 on procedures for dealing with professional incompetence. The applicant further argues:

—The applicant had only two months to apply the support plan.

—The plan was not continued in 2023, in violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the abovementioned Commission decision, stating that the plan ‘shall end upon notification to the official of the annual report (…), indicating a satisfactory performance level.’

—The evaluation did not contain ‘the assessment of the official’s efforts to attain the objectives set out in the support plan’ and was not ‘substantiated by factual elements’, in violation of Article 5, paragraph 2, of the above-mentioned decision.

—The support plan only increased the applicant’s workload, since it was based on weekly reporting on numerous issues. However, there was no or very little feedback from his hierarchy in this regard, which made the plan inefficient.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the appraisal report was established in violation of the Commission Decision of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations: the same person was both reporting officer and appeal assessor in the applicant’s 2022 evaluation.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/737/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—