Action brought on 2 August 2018 — WV v EEAS

(Case T-471/18)

(2018/C 364/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of 27 November 2017, reference ‘eeas.ba.hr.3(2017)6459331’, delivered by [confidential] (1) imposing on the applicant a salary deduction in the amount of 72 calendar days;

—	annul, in so far as necessary, the explicit rejection decision of 2 May 2018 (‘eeas.ba.hr.3/ED/ld(2018)2309062’) following the applicant’s complaint of 3 January 2018;

—

decide that the sums that must be reimbursed to the applicant following that annulment are to be increased by default interest calculated at the rate of 5 % per annum or a different rate to be set by the Court, calculated on the day on which actual recovery takes place and according to the dates of the various deductions made;

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Articles 1e(2), 12, 12a, 21, 25, 26, 55 and 60 of the Staff Regulations, of the duty of care, of the principle of good administration and infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1). She also invokes infringement of, inter alia, Articles 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the right to a fair hearing, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and abuse of rights and abuse of process, as well as a flagrant breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of equality of arms. Lastly, the applicant claims infringement of the principle which requires the authorities to hand down decisions only on the basis of legally permissible grounds, by which is meant grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, fact or law, as well as infringement of the principles of proportionality, audi alteram partem and legal certainty, in addition to infringement of 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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

(1)  Confidential data omitted.