Action brought on 27 March 2024 – XH v Commission

(Case T-1083/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: XH (represented by: M. Stanek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul decision R/351/23 of 17/10/2023, issued by the Appointing Authority in response to the applicant’s complaint of 17 June 2023;

Compensate the applicant for the loss and damages sustained as specified in her present action, with regard to the consequences of the abovementioned decision; ¹

Order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging:

Breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations which mandates the Appointing Authority to assign officials based on the interest of the service, disregarding other factors like nationality;

Adverse effect of the transfer, which was not solely in the interest of the service but influenced by AIPN irregularities, which contradict the provisions requiring actions to be solely in the interest of the service;

Further retaliatory actions, in particular a breach of Articles 90(2), 1, 12 and 12a of the Staff Regulations and breach of Articles 4 and 9 of Regulation No. 883/2013; ¹

Breach of confidentiality obligations - breach of Articles 17(1) and 19 of the Staff Regulations, which stress non-disclosure of information acquired through duties unless authorised, especially in legal proceedings;

Conflict of interest and procedural irregularities, in particular, breach of Article 11, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 11a of the Staff Regulations;

Access to justice and fair trial: lack of reasons and breach of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations.

Second plea in law, alleging:

Failure in duty to assist – breach of Articles 12a, 12, and 24 of the Staff Regulations;

The applicant’s eligibility for assistance under Articles 12a, 12 and 24 of the Staff Regulations has been denied, based on her involvement in scenarios like potential dismissal, criminal proceedings initiated by OLAF, and disciplinary proceedings for serious breaches. This approach is seen as premature and potentially violates the presumption of innocence;

Violation of the presumption of innocence: Excluding assistance based on mere participation in investigations or disciplinary proceedings presupposes guilt, contrary to the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence as outlined in Article 9 of the said Regulation No 883/2013.

____________

¹ The applicant claims compensation of EUR 25 000 for non-material loss suffered as a direct result of alleged administrative and procedural breaches. The requested amount is stated to reflect the significant emotional distress, damage to reputation, and professional setbacks experienced by the applicant due to the alleged breaches of EU Staff Regulations and related provisions.

¹ Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1).