(Case T-215/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the present action admissible and well founded;

—annul the staff report for 2016 and the decision of 23 May 2017, notified on 28 June 2017, refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression;

—in so far as necessary, annul the decision of September 2017 and the implicit decision rejecting, respectively, the applicant’s administrative appeal and claim;

—order the defendant to pay damages in respect of the non-pecuniary harm valued ex aequo et bono at EUR 15000;

—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 infringement of the appraisal procedure set out in the Annual Salary and Bonus Review guidelines (‘ASBR guidelines’), of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, committed by the defendant in adopting the staff report for 2016 (‘the contested staff report’). The applicant raises the following complaints in particular:

—the contested staff report was drafted by a member of staff of DG-H rather than by the assessors;

—the contested staff report was adopted even though the applicant’s appraisal exercise had already been definitively closed;

—the appraisal period relating to the contested staff report was too short to form the basis of an annual appraisal;

—the contested staff report does not constitute a performance tool.

2.Second plea in law, alleging manifest error in the contested staff report since, first, the appraisal is in part based on a task which was not completed on account of sick leave and, secondly, positive appraisal from an extraneous manager was reduced in scope and was not correctly taken into account by the assessors, who also failed to take account of the relevant objectives.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the decision of 23 May 2017 refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression (‘the ASBR decision’) is based on an unlawful staff report.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ASBR decision was adopted by a non-competent authority since it was adopted by a person who had been temporarily appointed for 6 months and did not have the status required to adopt that decision.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a number of manifest errors in the ASBR decision since, at the time of its adoption, that decision was not able to establish underperformance.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the ASBR guidelines, the ASBR procedure and Article 41 of the Charter, in so far as the ASBR decision lacks any statement of reasons.