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 62016TN0874

Case T-874/16: Action brought on 9 December 2016 — RA v Court of Auditors

OJ C 46, 13.2.2017, p. 22–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.2.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/22

Action brought on 9 December 2016 — RA v Court of Auditors

(Case T-874/16)

(2017/C 046/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul the decision of 4 March 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11;

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, by which the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of the promotion system in force at the Court of Auditors of the European Union, implemented by decision 53-2014 on promotions, in that it affects the appointing authority’s ability to identify in a methodical way the disparities in the method of appraising officials as applied by the various reporting officers of the institution according to their own subjective viewpoint.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 4 May 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as the appointing authority did not carry out a comparative examination of the applicant’s merits on a basis of equality and objectivity, using comparable sources of information.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons in the response dismissing the complaint shows that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment.
Top