This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0318
Case T-318/22: Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Passalacqua v Commission
Case T-318/22: Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Passalacqua v Commission
Case T-318/22: Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Passalacqua v Commission
OJ C 276, 18.7.2022, p. 20–21
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.7.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 276/20 |
Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Passalacqua v Commission
(Case T-318/22)
(2022/C 276/29)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Roberto Passalacqua (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 in the 2021 promotion procedure, which resulted from his failure to appear on the list of promoted officials; |
— |
annul the Commission’s decision to promote to grade AD 11 the officials appearing on the list of promoted officials in the 2021 promotion procedure; |
— |
annul the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2022 rejecting complaint No. R/620/21 lodged by the applicant within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
— |
annul all preliminary, consequential or connected acts or measures; |
— |
or, in the alternative, make provision for compensation for the damage resulting from the Commission’s unlawful measures. |
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 misuse of powers and claiming that the applicant’s merits were assessed with clear and unjustified bias as compared with those of other officials who were less deserving of promotion.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that although the Commission is not obliged to provide reasons for its decisions vis-à-vis candidates who are not promoted, it does, however, have an obligation to provide reasons for a decision by which it rejects complaints lodged, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, by a candidate who has not been promoted, and the reasoning in that decision must coincide with the reasoning of the decision against which the claim was lodged. That obligation was not met in the present case.
|