Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1123

24.2.2025

(Case T-13/25)

(C/2025/1123)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—find the action admissible and well founded;

—annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of 2 July 2024 to terminate the applicant’s contract;

—to the extent necessary, annul the decision of 1 October 2024 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

—order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered;

—order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging, first, manifest error and error in law as regards the reason for the termination and the interests of the service; second, infringement of Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’) and of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’); and, lastly, breach of the duties of diligence and care. The applicant submits that the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment exceeded the competence that it has when the reason for a request for termination is a breakdown in the relationship of trust, which entails an infringement of Article 47(c) of the CEOS and of the duty of diligence. The applicant argues that the reasons relied on in the contested decision and the decision rejecting the complaint are manifestly incorrect, display an absence of the actual exercise of the power of assessment and of the duty of care and that, furthermore, those reasons cannot be a basis for termination without breaching the principle of proportionality. The applicant argues that the termination of her contract disregards the protection accorded to her by the measures established in the request for assistance and Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. That termination is thereby also vitiated by a breach of the duty of diligence.

2.Second plea, alleging manifest error in the reasons for recommencing the termination procedure, improper exercise of Article 47(c) of the CEOS and misuse of powers.

3.Third plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons.

4.Fourth plea, based on Article 12a and Article 22a of the Staff Regulations.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1123/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—