Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-5/20 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, February 14, 2020

• Resolution Date: February 14, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-5/20

Action brought on 6 January 2020 - CP v Parliament

(Case T-5/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CP (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

accordingly:

annul the applicant’s 2016 staff report, signed by the secretary general on 16 November 2018;

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the president of 25 September 2019 rejecting the complaint;

order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons and infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as, first of all, the applicant’s appraisal was incomplete since no assessment was given under the heading ‘sense of responsibility and work ethic’ under ‘conduct’ in the final version of the staff report. Second, there was a sufficiently clear discrepancy between his 2016 staff report and his earlier staff reports, in particular that of 2015, and adequate reasons for that discrepancy were not given.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to take into account in the assessments the fact that the applicant’s unit was understaffed and the applicant’s ancillary activities. In that regard the applicant takes the view that, in 2016, his performance was influenced by several factors which were not properly taken into consideration by the defendant when drawing up his staff report, namely the fact that the unit was understaffed, his participation in the Staff Committee and his involvement in the implementation of a new evacuation concept which had become a priority for Directorate B of DG SAFE, the ‘PPP’.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the assessments in the 2016 staff report, marked by a clear deterioration of performance compared to 2015, is manifestly incorrect and does not take into account the applicant’s full dedication to his activities and the results achieved, despite the particularly difficult circumstances.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging lack of a quiet environment during the assessment interviews and infringement of the right to be heard and of Article 6.2 of the internal rules on staff reports, in so far as the interview with the...