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 62018TN0511

    Case T-511/18: Action brought on 4 February 2019 — XH v Commission

    OJ C 131, 8.4.2019, p. 52–53 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    8.4.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 131/52

    Action brought on 4 February 2019 — XH v Commission

    (Case T-511/18)

    (2019/C 131/61)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: XH (represented by: E. Auleytner, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of 13 November 2017 (IA no 25-2017) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2017;

    —

    annul the decision of 7 June 2018 of the Appointing Authority in response to the complaint filed by the applicant;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 20 000 for non-material loss and EUR 45 000 for material loss;

    —

    order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, disputing the content of her career development reports (CDRs) as a basis of the promotion exercise at issue and alleging irregularity of the closed promotion procedure in question, impossibility and illegality of a posteriori regularisation after the closure of the promotion exercise.

    —

    The applicant complains that it was impossible to demonstrate that the value judgments could have been differently realised, if the irregular mid-term report had not been taken into account at different stages of the promotion procedure.

    —

    The applicant invokes an error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure: the violation of the terms of Commission Decision C(2013) 8968 final of 16 December 2013 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the violation of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits.

    —

    The applicant further invokes a manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging the impact of irregularity on the contested promotion exercise, taking into account the applicant’s promotion file and her CDRs. This irregularity allegedly led to the exclusion of promotion that could have been otherwise expected, if a correct comparison of merits had been duly performed.
    Top