Action brought on 18 March 2024 – DF v Commission

(Case T-153/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: DF (represented by: A. Guillerme and S. Napolitano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the decision of 12 May 2023 of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of the European Commission terminating her recruitment process;

award damages in the amount of EUR 85 000 by way of compensation for the non-material and material damage suffered by the applicant, subject to increase during the proceedings and to default interest from the date of judgment until payment in full, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, plus three and a half percentage points;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging irregularities in the opinion of the Medical Committee and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant argued in particular that the Medical Committee failed to carry out a full and impartial review of her situation, in that it had not taken into account all the documents in her medical file.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment (‘the AECE’) erred in law as regards the scope of its powers. According to the applicant, the AECE erred in law by considering that it could not, before adopting the contested decision, carry out additional checks regarding the substance of the factual elements on which the Medical Committee relied and the existence of a comprehensible link between its medical findings and its conclusion as to unfitness.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty of care. The applicant submits that the Commission, by its conduct and its decisions, failed to comply with the principle of sound administration and its duty of care. The applicant relies on the unjustified delay in managing the recruitment process, the multiple errors made and the Commission’s conduct when processing her complaint.

____________