Action brought on 9 November 2021 – TO v EASO
(Case T-727/21)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: TO (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)
Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul the decision which entered into force on 1 January 20[21] and which was allegedly adopted on 18 December 202[0], of which the applicant became aware on 4 January 2021 via the link [confidential], 1 taken by [confidential], in so far as it does not extend by a first additional year, that is to say until 31 December 2021, the reserve list bearing the following references [confidential], which was valid until 31 December 2020;
re-open and extend accordingly the reserve list, like the 44 other extended lists covered by the contested decision, for one year from the date of its reopening and, consequently, appoint the applicant to the higher grade of AST 3;
order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in respect of both material and non-material damage, corresponding to:
the difference in remuneration between that currently received by a person in grade AST 1, step 3, and that of a person in grade AST 3, step 1, calculated over a period of five years, from the date of the adverse effect, namely 1 January 2021, taking account of a loss of opportunity estimated at 75%;
the difference in pension rights between those currently acquired by a person in grade AST 1, step 3, and those of a person in grade AST 3, step 1, calculated over the same five-year period, from the date of the adverse effect, namely 1 January 2021, taking account of a loss of opportunity estimated at 75%;
an amount of EUR 7 500 for the non-material damage caused;
a provisional amount of EUR 1.00 for loss of cover under the sickness fund;
order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s trust and legitimate expectations and failure to state reasons for the contested decision.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, of Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of Article 27 and the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, as well as excess of and misuse of powers.
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
____________
1 Confidential data redacted.