Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3932

21.7.2025

(Case T-353/25)

(C/2025/3932)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JH (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Ombudsman

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of 19 August 2024, formally requesting the applicant to amend his doctoral thesis, the decision of 23 August 2024 opposing the transfer of the applicant to the European Commission and the decision of 5 September 2024 requesting the applicant not to disseminate the original thesis;

—in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 21 February 2025 rejecting the complaint;

—order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action in so far as it is directed against the decision with regard to amending his doctoral thesis and the decision relating to the declaration of non-dissemination, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Ombudsman lacks competence to apply Article 17a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the scope of Article 17a of the Staff Regulations.

3.Third plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 17a(2) of the Staff Regulations.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of diligence stemming from the principles of sound administration, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and abuse of powers.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in the interpretation and the application of the concept of ‘serious prejudice to the legitimate interests of the Union’.

In support of the action in so far as it is directed against the decision refusing to transfer the applicant to the Commission, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, misuse of powers and abuse of powers.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3932/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—