Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1446

10.3.2025

(Case T-22/25)

(C/2025/1446)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HG (represented by: N. Flandin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the ESMA decision of 26 April 2024 rejecting the request made by the applicant on the basis of Article 1d (4) of the Staff Regulations of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) for reasonable accommodation;

—in so far as necessary, annul the ESMA decision of 18 October 2024 rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant against the decision of 26 April 2024;

—order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;

—order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision, together with the decision rejecting the complaint, are illegal because they are based on the medical opinion of 22 March 2024 and on the note of 10 April 2024, which were both adopted within the wrong legal framework, namely the hybrid working decision, (1) and because they are vitiated by a manifest error of appreciation.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint are vitiated by a lack of motivation.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint are illegal in stating that the applicant infringes Article 20 of the Staff Regulations. Furthermore, the applicant raises a subsidiary plea of illegality regarding the said Article 20 of the Staff Regulations and also claims that the contested decision is disproportionate.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint are vitiated by a breach of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation. In addition, the applicant claims violation of the principle of non-discrimination, of equal treatment on the ground of disability and of the principle of proportionality.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint violate the duty of care.

Commission Decision C(2022) 1788 final of 24 March 2022 on working time and hybrid working.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1446/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

END OF DOCUMENT