EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/65

(Case T-831/22)

(2023/C 63/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the action admissible and well-founded and, accordingly;

—annul the decision of [confidential] to terminate the applicant’s contract, with reference [confidential], taken by [confidential], which entered into force on the same day and was notified to the applicant on [confidential];

—order the defendant to pay provisional compensation for the material and non-material damage in the amount of EUR 45 000, subject to alteration in the proceedings;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 1d, 1e(2), 12, 12a, 17(1), 22a and 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, applicable by analogy to contract staff pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, and infringement of Articles 8, 31(1), 41(1) and 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999.

2.Second plea, alleging infringement of fundamental and general principles of EU law including, inter alia, the principle of effective exercise of the rights of the defence, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of confidentiality, the principle of proportionality and the principle of sound administration.

3.Third plea, alleging infringement of the principle which requires the authority to hand down decisions only on the basis of legally admissible grounds, by which is meant grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, fact or law, or by ultra vires and improper exercise of authority.

4.Fourth plea, alleging breach of the duty of care and damage to the applicant’s dignity and reputation.

5.Fifth plea, alleging infringement of, inter alia, Articles 4, 5, 14, 16(2)(b) and (e), 16(3), 17(1)(e) and (g), 18 and 19 of Regulation (EU) No 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC.

(1) Confidential data omitted.

(2) OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1.

(3) OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39.