Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1243

3.3.2025

(Case T-6/25)

(C/2025/1243)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QI (represented by: N. Flandin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—find the present application for annulment admissible and well founded;

—annul the decision of the Commission of 10 November 2023 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and her request under Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations;

—annul the decision of the Commission of 23 September 2024 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 12 February 2024 on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the contested decision of 10 November 2023;

—order the payment of damages estimated ex æquo et bono at EUR 75 000;

—order the defendant to pay the entire amount of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the rejection decision and the contested decision are unlawful owing to failure to take into account the decision of the Office for the ‘Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements’ (PMO) recognising the occupational origin of the applicant’s illness, and also alleging incorrect reasoning.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection decision and the contested decision are unlawful since the applicant has been asked to provide proof of harassment rather than prima facie evidence, and also alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

3.Third plea in law, alleging other unlawful aspects vitiating the contested decision and the rejection decision which the applicant wishes to highlight:

—Unlawfulness of the contested decision and the rejection decision owing to failure to take into account the medical certificates of May and June 2020;

—Unlawfulness of the contested decision and the rejection decision owing to failure to take into account the facts set out in the first evaluation of 2020 and the removal from her post;

—Unlawfulness of the contested decision and the rejection decision owing to a denial of justice and a failure to provide reasoning;

—Unlawfulness of the contested decision and the rejection decision owing to a refusal to examine the complaints and pleas on the ground of a purported lack of competence.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1243/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—