Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021TN0522

    Case T-522/21: Action brought on 18 January 2022 — XH v Commission

    OJ C 237, 20.6.2022, p. 55–56 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 237, 20.6.2022, p. 54–54 (GA)

    20.6.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 237/55


    Action brought on 18 January 2022 — XH v Commission

    (Case T-522/21)

    (2022/C 237/72)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: XH (represented by: K. Górny-Salwarowska, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    annul decision D/386/20 of 24 November 2020 concerning the refusal to rectify the applicant’s Sysper 2 file, upheld by decision No. R/125/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 16 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 22 February 2021;

    annul decision of 12 November 2020 (IA no 32-2020) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2020, upheld by decision No. R/80/21 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2021 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021;

    compensate the loss and damages of the applicant; (1)

    order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging an error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedures: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C(2013)8968 laying down general provisions 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.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging 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.


    (1)  Two specific amounts of damages are claimed in the application, namely EUR 25 000 for non-material loss and EUR 50 000 in respect of the applicant’s alleged material damage.


    Top