—

The applicant submits that Article 296 TFEU and Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union have been infringed in so far as it is not possible to understand the reasoning followed by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the contested decisions.

—

The applicant alleges an infringement of the law and that administrative decisions have been adopted by an authority lacking competence. By adopting the contested decisions and repeatedly extending the applicant’s suspension, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office acted ultra vires and encroached upon powers which, in this area, are reserved exclusively to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

—

The applicant relies on Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), on the ground that the investigation was conducted by the same authority as that called upon to decide on the suspension from duties.

—

The applicant relies on Article 41 of the Charter to claim an infringement of the rights of the defence and of the internal rules adopted by the Commission. The applicant was not heard before the contested decisions were adopted, nor was the applicant given the opportunity to put forward circumstances in their defence.

—

The applicant argues that statements concerning the applicant’s alleged guilt were made to the press before the investigation was concluded.

—

The applicant claims to be the victim of an error of law and of a manifest error of assessment on the ground that the applicant’s suspension from duties is not based on specific and serious circumstances.