23.1.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/53

Action brought on 24 November 2016 — QB v ECB

(Case T-827/16)

(2017/C 022/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QB (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

—	Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

In consequence:

—	Annul the staff report for 2015 and the decision of 15 December 2015, served on 7 January 2016, refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression;

—	In so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 2 May 2016 and 15 September 2016 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and claim respectively;

—	Order the defendant to pay damages in respect of the non-pecuniary harm valued ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;

—	Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports and of the procedure, infringement of the rights of the defence and infringement of the duty of care, committed by the defendant in adopting the staff report for 2015 (‘the contested staff report’). The applicant raises the following complaints in particular:

—	the lack of dialogue and the infringement of the rights of the defence;

—	the contested staff report does not set out any suggestions for improvement or set any objectives in the manner required by the General Instructions for the preparations of staff reports, which constitutes an infringement of the duty of care;

—	the lack of any intervention by an uninvolved supervisor.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of objectivity and impartiality and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) vitiating the contested staff report.

—	The applicant is of the opinion that the particular circumstances of the present case show that the reporting officers, and particularly the second reporting officers, were not capable of fulfilling their role objectively and impartially.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error. The applicant has set out evidence which renders the assessments of the facts in the contested staff report implausible.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 15 December 2015 refusing the applicant the benefit of a salary progression is based on an unlawful staff report.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the 2015 guidelines and the procedure and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter in that the decision of 15 December 2015 does not state any reasons and the applicant was not heard in advance.