EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-312/25: Action brought on 15 May 2025 – JE v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0312

62025TN0312

May 15, 2025
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2025/4177

4.8.2025

(Case T-312/25)

(C/2025/4177)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the application admissible and founded;

consequently,

annul the applicant’s appraisal report of 2023;

subsidiarily annul the 2023 appraisal report in so far it contains the contested comments;

together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 February 2025 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the contested appraisal report;

order the compensation of the damages suffered by the applicant;

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the contested appraisal report and in the contested decision.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 41(1) of the Charter, a violation of the principle of good administration and a violation of the right of defence and principle of impartiality.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 5, of Article 1.3 of annex I and of Article 7(3) of the Commission Decision of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 Staff Regulations and Article 44(1) Staff Regulations.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty of care and of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging an illegality of the contested comments due to the situation of harassment.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons, a breach of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and a breach of Article 2(3) of the Commission Decision of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 Staff Regulations and Article 44(1) Staff Regulations.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4177/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia