19.4.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/45

—

(Case T-88/21)

(2021/C 138/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Paesen (Beersel, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision dated 10 April 2020 on re-assignment to a non-managerial post and, alternatively, annul the end of probation report confirmed by that decision;

—annul the Appointing Authority’s decision dated 12 May 2020 rejecting the request for assistance of the complainant submitted on 17 January 2020 under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

—annul, where necessary, the decision of 4 November 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

—compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage she allegedly suffered as a result of psychological harassment and unlawful actions by the administration;

—order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, so far as concerns the annulment aspect, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights to good administration, of the right to be heard, manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of Commission Decision on middle management staff C (2008) 5028/2 and the decision of the Secretary General of EEAS of 15 November 2019 on the exercise and subdelegation of powers entrusted to the Appointing Authority and to the AECE ADMIN (2019) 31, and manifest error of assessment.

3.Third plea in law, divided into two parts.

—First part, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, stemming from Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, and manifest error of assessment.

—Second part, alleging failure to observe Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of assessment.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of dignity and decent working conditions and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the prohibition of any form of psychological harassment.

—