Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/24

Action brought on 29 January 2018 — UZ v Parliament

(Case T-47/18)

(2018/C 123/31)

Language of the case: French


Applicant: UZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

Declare and rule,

that the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 27 February 2017 to impose on him the disciplinary penalty of a reduction in grade from grade AD 13, step 3, to grade AD 12, step 3, with effect from 1 March 2017 and the setting of his promotion points acquired at grade AD 13 to zero is annulled;

that the decision rejecting his application for assistance is annulled;

that the European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 3 and 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), in that the applicant was not heard by the Appointing Authority for its decision under Article 3 of Annex IX or before rejecting the applicant’s application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9, 10 and 16 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in that the contested disciplinary decision infringes the principle of proportionality and imposes on the applicant an overall penalty not provided for in Annex IX of the Staff Regulations, namely a reduction in grade, the withdrawal of promotion points and the applicant’s exclusion from any managerial task.


Third plea in law, alleging irregularity in the work of the Disciplinary Board, in that not only was that Board improperly seised of the matter without the applicant being heard in advance, but it also disregarded, throughout the proceedings, the rights of the defence.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, in particular in so far as the Appointing Authority failed to hear the applicant before rejecting the applicant’s application for assistance.