Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62020TN0552

Case T-552/20: Action brought on 2 September 2020 — MD v Commission

OJ C 371, 3.11.2020, p. 18–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

3.11.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/18

Action brought on 2 September 2020 — MD v Commission

(Case T-552/20)

(2020/C 371/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: MD (represented by: A. Ricci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the contested decision;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 14 during the 2019 promotion exercise (Administrative Notice No 32-2019 of 14.11.2019).

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons in the decision rejecting his complaint. The applicant raises in this regard:

—

Failure by the appointing authority to set out, in the decision rejecting the complaint, the individual and relevant ground justifying the decision not to promote the applicant;

—

Complete failure to state reasons in relation to the second head of complaint (infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in the comparative examination in particular);

—

Insufficient statement of reasons in relation to the third head of complaint (infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in particular on account of the absence of actual consideration of the comparative merits of the officials. The applicant raises in this regard:

—

Manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s level of responsibility during the entire reference period as compared with that of the other promoted officials referred to in the application;

—

Manifest error of assessment regarding the criterion of the use of languages other than the person’s mother tongue, in the execution of his or her duties, in comparison with the other promoted officials referred to in the application;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging age discrimination in relation to the alleged ‘practical effect’ of every promotion. The applicant raises in this regard:

—

Presumption that the failure to promote the applicant was justified by the absence of financial advantage of the promotion itself on account of the age of the applicant, close to retirement at the material time;

—

Prohibition of age discrimination and introduction of an unlawful financial criterion as an additional criterion for promotion.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations. The applicant raises in this regard:

—

Failure to comply with the average rate for promotion to grade AD 14, calculated over a five-year period;

—

Failure to communicate information concerning compliance with Article 6(2) to the Commission staff or the applicant in response to his complaint;

—

Burden of proof on the defendant institution, having regard to the specific context.
Top