11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/41

(Case T-4/23)

(2023/C 127/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PS (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul decision Ares (2022)6765407 of the European External Action Service of 30 September 2022 rejecting his complaint of 20 May 2022 and, insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 22 February 2022 rejecting his request of 20 October 2021 to be awarded damages;

—order the payment of the sum of 65 000 euros as financial compensation for his professional prejudice, of the sum of 75 000 euros as financial compensation for his health prejudice and of the sum of 3 289 200 euros as financial compensation for his material prejudice;

—order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed faults and adopted an illegal behaviour in that:

—the transfer of the applicant to another post led to a clear downgrading of his professional level, in comparison with the professional level corresponding to the duties and functions he was hired for in the EU delegation in the third country concerned;

—it violated its duty of care which is normally incumbent on the administration, by not taking into account the serious consequences the sudden decision of the termination of the applicant’s contract and of his transfer involved for the applicant’s wellbeing and his family.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered a prejudice, as the faulty behaviour of the defendant had severe consequences for the applicant, leading to two series of damages, successively of professional and moral nature:

—first, the applicant is suffering a professional and reputational damage;

—secondly, the applicant suffered a health and moral damage.

3.Third plea in law, alleging the existence of a flagrant link of causality between the fault committed by the defendant and the applicant’s harm.