31.7.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/13

—

(Case C-91/23 P)

(2023/C 271/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: XH (represented by: K. Górny, adwokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—by consequence, give the appellant the benefit of his requests i.e.

A.Annulment of:

—the decision D/386/20 of 24 November 2020 concerning refusal to rectify the appellant's Syspers2 file, upheld by the decision No. R/125/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 16 June 2021 in response of the complaint filed by the appellant on 22 February 2021.

—the decision of 12 November 2020 (IA no 32-2020) concerning non-inclusion of the appellant's name in the list of the promoted officials in 2020, upheld by the decision No. R/80/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2021 in response of the complaint filed by the appellant on 5 February 2021.

B.Compensate loss and damages of the appellant.

—order the Commission to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law: Manifest error of assessment, distortion of evidence and error in law — Violation of Article 91 SR (1) and 270 TFEU. Infringement of the Practice Rules for the Implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Article 102, 104 and Annex 2, breach of Articles 76 and 147, 148(9) of the Rules of the Procedure of the General Court, as regards:

—manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of sound administration and fair trial;

—use and information of the Appellant’s addresses at the Registry of the General Court;

—failure to recognise the actual permanent address of the Appellant and acknowledge its changes in the course of legal aid proceedings;

—manifest error of assessment;

—failure to rectify and/or regularise the Appellant’s address;

—service of the Appellant’s correspondence to the General Court;

—rejection of postal proofs of recommended letters sent by the Appellant to the General Court;

—exclusion from the Court file of Appellant’s correspondence;

—content of the correspondence between the Appellant and the General Court;

—date of the suspension of the time limits for lodging an appeal;

—alleged mandate for service of the orders at the Appellant’s temporary address abroad where the Appellant didn’t resided (instead of the Appellant’s permanent address in Belgium);

—alleged mandate for service of the orders at the Appellant’s temporary address in Poland where the Appellant didn’t resided (instead of the Appellant’s permanent address in Belgium);

—existence of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure;

—existence of an excusable error;

—expiry of the time limit for lodging an action.

Language of the case: English

Regulation no 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 P 45, p. 1385).

—