Action brought on 17 July 2013 – Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others

(Case T-383/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Antonios Chatzianagnostou (Serres, Greece) (represented by: X. Makris, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

entirely annul, first, the decision dated 10/05/2013 of the Head of Mission of EULEX Kosovo headed ‘Final decision on disciplinary case 02/2013’, notice of which was received by the applicant on 16/05/2013, and, second, the decision dated 10/05/2013 of the Head of Mission of EULEX Kosovo headed ‘Final decision on disciplinary case 06/2013’ notice of which was received by the applicant on 16/05/2013;

exonerate him of each of the disciplinary charges brought against him by Eulex;·

order Eulex to produce in these proceedings copies of all documents which are contained in his disciplinary files at issue,·and

order the defendants to pay the legal costs and the remuneration of his legal representative.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The first plea concerns the infringement of an essential procedural requirement by reason of the complete absence of a statement of reasons for the contested acts and also the infringement of Article 296 TFEU and the general legal principles of the Member States of the European Union, in accordance with which reasons which are sufficient, full and specific must be stated for administrative acts adversely affecting an individual. In this case, the applicant maintains that a statement of reasons for the contested acts is wholly non-existent, even though it is an essential legal requirement.

The second plea concerns the infringement by the defendants by means of the contested acts of the applicant’s rights of defence, which are derived from ECHR and the general legal principles common to the Member States of the European Union. The applicant, in the framework of the disciplinary case against him No 6/2013 within EULEX, was found guilty of a disciplinary offence in respect of an act by him, but he received no written notice of the charges and was denied the ability to speak in his defence. Further, the applicant was deprived of his right to have full, timely and effective access to legal assistance and thus readily to defend himself with the aid of a legal representative of his choice, appropriately briefed, with full knowledge of the disciplinary procedures against him within EULEX.

The third plea concerns the claim that the contested acts contain errors in relation to the facts. The applicant maintains that the second contested act is based on suppositions and contradictory or inadequate reasons, thereby contravening the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence and his right not to incriminate himself. Further, that contested act is in error in that no account was taken of either the fact that the applicant committed a pardonable error of law or, at the least, the mitigating circumstances of his active repentance and remorse.

The fourth plea concerns an infringement of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 ECHR, Article 15 TFEU, Regulation 1049/2001/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, ¹ Directive 2003/98/ΕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 Νοvember 2003 ² and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant submits that the contested decisions of the EULEX Head of Mission, which confirmed the proposed disciplinary penalties to be imposed on the applicant, erred in law, because, if they were correct, they would have deemed admissible the applications brought by the applicant for their rescission on the ground, inter alia, of contravention of the above provisions relating to the applicant’s right to have access to the documents at issue in the two disciplinary cases against him within EULEX.

The fifth plea concerns the infringement by the contested acts of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equity in respect of assessment of the extent of the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant.

____________

¹ Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

² Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information.