Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/25

—

(Case C-877/19 P)

(2020/C 77/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Conclusions

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of 19 September 2019 (T-153/17);

—consequently, grant the order sought at first instance and therefore annul the 2014 and 2015 staff reports adopted definitively on 5 December 2016;

—order the respondent to pay the entire costs of the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal dismissed the action for the annulment of the 2014 and 2015 staff reports.

In the appellant’s ground of appeal, he claims, first, that the General Court infringed the duty to review and the obligation to state reasons and distorted the file and, second, that it infringed the Guide to staff reports, the obligation to state reasons and the duty to care for staff, and manifestly erred in its assessment.

The appellant claims that the General Court manifestly erred in its assessment and distorted the facts in taking the view that his allegedly inappropriate conduct was the only reason why the administration had granted him a passable assessment for sense of responsibility, despite the fact that that section is defined by the Guide to staff reports as the individual’s engagement with his or her work and availability to complete his or her tasks in an active and constructive spirit.

In addition, the appellant claims that the General Court did not review the decrease in the appellant’s tasks correctly. His state of health and part-time work for medical reasons cannot justify reducing part of an official’s tasks, in particular, without his consent.

Furthermore, the appellant contests the General Court’s assessment of his change of office and position and of his conduct during the 2014 assessment period, claiming that they constitute distortion of the file.

Lastly, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal failed to criticise the failure to care for staff, in particular in respect of an official suffering from mental health problems, and to apply the third subparagraph Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations.

—