Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/22

—

(Case C-343/23 P)

(2023/C 321/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-Marc Colombani (represented by: N. de Montigny, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal;

—resolve the case and, doing what the General Court should have done:

—annul the decision of 15 June 2021;

—order the respondent to pay a symbolic EUR 1 as compensation for non-material damage;

—order the respondent to the appeal to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in the present proceedings and in the proceedings at first instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on several grounds of appeal.

As a preliminary point and in general, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law in examining the subject matter of his request for assistance, that it unlawfully restricted the scope of the request to include only autonomous and active individual behaviour of each of the persons concerned, excluding any concept of harassment and concerted practice, and that it undermined the unity of the case-law in the matter.

Second, the appellant also criticises the error of law committed by the General Court in examining the error of assessment committed by the EEAS, in particular the appellant alleges an unlawful reversal of the burden of proof in the analysis of the condition of ‘prima facie evidence’ of adverse behaviour, the failure to take account of the concept of co-perpetrator/participation, which does not require active behaviour, the distortion of the evidence submitted, breach of the adversarial principle, contradictions in the statement of reasons, an error of law committed in examining the ‘justifications’ for the behaviour complained of which is contrary to Articles 11, 12, 12a, 21 and 21a of the Staff Regulations and which negates the responsibilities of the most senior managers of an institution.

Third, the appellant alleges infringement by the General Court of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations in finding that the EEAS was right to refuse the appellant’s request for assistance.

Fourth, the appellant alleges failure to take account of the existence of a decision rejecting the request made and that an error of law was committed in the analysis of Articles 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations.

Finally, the appellant seeks recognition of the existence of his non-material damage, which was dismissed by the General Court of the European Union.

—