Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62020TN0334

Case T-334/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — KH v EEAS

OJ C 247, 27.7.2020, p. 43–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.7.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/43

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — KH v EEAS

(Case T-334/20)

(2020/C 247/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of 24 July 2019 to reassign the applicant to headquarters, by considering the applicant to be on mission from 1 September to 31 December 2019 only;

—

annul the decision of 29 July 2019 to reject the request for assistance registered under reference [confidential] which was submitted on 29 March 2019 by the applicant on account of harassment on the part of the applicant’s Head of Delegation [confidential]; (1)

—

annul the 2019 staff report (for the period 2018) dated 3 October 2019 which concluded that the applicant had underperformed;

—

annul the decision of 4 November 2019 not to automatically advance the applicant to the next step on account of the applicant’s unsatisfactory staff report;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

Against the reassignment decision, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties to have regard for the welfare of officials and of sound administration;

—

Second plea in law, alleging ineffectiveness of the right to be heard;

—

Third plea in law, alleging error of law in the reasoning of the memo of 2 April 2019.

2.

Against the decision to reject the applicant’s request for assistance, the applicant relies on five pleas in law:

—

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance;

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a of the of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’);

—

Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations and error of law;

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be effectively heard;

—

Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the evidence submitted for assessment.

3.

Against the staff report, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

—

First plea in law, alleging contradictions in EEAS’s position;

—

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties of impartiality and neutrality;

—

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duties to provide assistance, to have regard for the welfare of officials and of sound administration;

—

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and infringement of the rights of the defence.

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

Top