This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0293
Case T-293/22: Action brought on 19 May 2022 — PB v SRB
Case T-293/22: Action brought on 19 May 2022 — PB v SRB
Case T-293/22: Action brought on 19 May 2022 — PB v SRB
OJ C 257, 4.7.2022, p. 48–48
(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 257, 4.7.2022, p. 44–44
(GA)
4.7.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 257/48 |
Action brought on 19 May 2022 — PB v SRB
(Case T-293/22)
(2022/C 257/62)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: PB (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the decision of the President of the SRB of 16 July 2021 not to reclassify the applicant at the end of the 2021 reclassification exercise; |
— |
in so far as necessary, annul the SRB’s decision of 14 February 2022 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 15 October 2021 against the decision not to reclassify him; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rules applicable to the implementation of the reclassification exercise as provided for by Article 5 of the general implementing provisions regarding Article 54 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (the ‘GIP’). |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging an erroneous analysis of Article 4 of the GIP and an erroneous assessment of the levels of responsibility with respect to a function and not with respect to a grade. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of procedure of the Joint Reclassification Committee and of the obligation to draw up a report relating to each reclassification exercise. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to documents and infringement of the principles of openness, predictability and legal certainty, and the existence of — at least objective — bias due to the lack of information at multiple stages of the procedure. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and errors in the list of factors assessed. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Annex II to the GIP and the target average set. |
7. |
Seventh plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s file, his merits and his seniority compared with colleagues in the same directorate. |