—

annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant’s request to be able to continue to perform the duties of close protection officer, like all the other close protection officers, following the appointment of the new members of the College of Commissioners;

—

order the European Commission to pay the applicant a sum set ex aequo et bono for the non-material damage caused and to pay the costs.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU. The applicant submits that the judgment of 8 May 2024, UF v Commission (T-24/23, EU:T:2024:293) has not been faithfully and fully implemented in so far as he has not been reinstated in a post equivalent to that of close protection officer. The authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment acted in bad faith to prevent his participation in the usual procedure for maintaining close protection officers in service after the new College of Commissioners took office.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, on the ground that the grounds relied on in support of non-renewal (previous professional incidents) are inaccurate, disputed and have already been rejected by the Court. Furthermore, the Commission did not carry out any objective verification of those facts.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials in that no real assessment of the applicant’s interests was carried out. The administration did not consider an alternative solution to enable the applicant to be maintained as a close protection officer, despite the case-law law requiring a balance to be struck between the interests of the service and those of the member of staff.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights. The applicant argues that the Commission’s dilatory and non-transparent conduct (noted by the President of the Court in the order of 17 June 2025, UF v Commission (T-502/24 RII, not published, EU:T:2025:606)) demonstrates an abuse of process and a circumvention of the abovementioned judgment of 8 May 2024. According to the applicant, the Commission’s reliance on his failure to challenge a standard letter, informing all close protection officers of the fact that their contract is linked to the duration of the Commission’s term of office, in order to justify his dismissal, illustrates that point, in so far as a subsequent letter was sent to all close protection officers – with the exception of the applicant – informing them that they could consider the first letter null and void and that they were kept in service, in accordance with established practice.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and proportionality. The applicant submits that he is the only close protection officer who was not kept in service despite his wishes, whereas all his colleagues were. In his view, there is no objective justification for such a disparity.

6.

Sixth plea, alleging misuse of powers. The applicant submits that the refusal to keep him in service is based on a clear desire to remove him from close protection duties, unrelated to the needs of the service or an objective assessment of his ability.