—

annul the decision of the defendant’s Director refusing to grant him an exception under Article 12(2)(a) of the CEOS (1) and terminating, as a consequence, the applicant’s contract under Article 47(c)(ii) of the CEOS;

—

if need be, annul the decision of the defendant’s director rejecting the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations directed by the applicant against the above decision;

—

compensate the applicant’s non-material damage estimated ex aequo et bono at 50 000 euros;

—

prescribe, as a measure of inquiry pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, the production by the defendant of the information related to the newly appointed Accounting Officer’s experience recorded in the defendant’s Activity Based Budget records; and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the applicant’s right to be heard because the contested decision was adopted without the applicant being heard by the Director following the negative recommendation of the Head of Legal Service of the defendant.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of legal certainty. The applicant contests that the administrative note launching the authorization of exception process was issued by the Head of Corporate of the defendant and it is therefore unclear if this process was established by a competent authority. In addition, there is no evidence that the Director of the defendant approved the administrative note. It is also alleged that even the criteria for assessing the interest of the service are clear whether they have been adopted by a competent authority or not.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of impartiality because the recommendation of the applicant’s case was made by the applicant’s former line manager, who was not in a position to assess his expression of interest in the light of the relevant criteria and who was not impartial.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error in the assessment of the interest of the service and in the reasoning for the contested decision. Furthermore, it is alleged that the defendant violated its obligation of good administration and misused its powers.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the principle of good administration, its duty of care, as well as Article 41 of the Charter and the principle of legal certainty, because the applicant, being a UK staff member, didn’t have clarity as to his legal position in the defendant for almost two years.

6.

Sixth pleas in law, alleging that the contested decision creates discrimination on the grounds of the applicant’s health.