Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TN0867

Case T-867/19: Action brought on 20 December 2019 — RA v Court of Auditors

OJ C 68, 2.3.2020, pp. 46–47 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

2.3.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/46

Action brought on 20 December 2019 — RA v Court of Auditors

(Case T-867/19)

(2020/C 68/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RA (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of 27 February 2019 taken to comply with the judgment of 8 November 2018, RA v Court of Auditors (T-874/16, not published, EU:T:2018:757) not to promote him to grade AD11 during the 2016 promotion exercise;

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay him a sum of EUR 8 000 for the non-material damage suffered;

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that there was inadequate reasoning given in the response dismissing the complaint in that the relevant individual ground justifying the applicant not being promoted was not identified.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for not carrying out an effective evaluation of comparative merits for all of the officials eligible for promotion. First, by carrying out a ‘general’ assessment of merits of the officials eligible for promotion, the Appointing Authority did not carry out the comparative evaluation on a basis of equality. Secondly, it applied the criterion of use of languages improperly.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which vitiate the contested decision.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt measures to comply with a judgment within a reasonable period, which caused significant non-material damage to the applicant, which should be remedied.
Top