4The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 2 to 20 of the judgment under appeal in the following terms:2 The [appellant] is an official of the EEAS.3 He started his career in the French diplomatic service. On 1 May 1990 he entered the service of the Commission of the European Communities. In September 2010, he was assigned to the EEAS, where he was an assistant to the Executive Secretary-General, A, until February 2015. Between March 2015 and August 2016, the [appellant] was first assistant and then adviser to the Executive Secretary-General, B. On 1 June 2016, the [appellant] was appointed adviser to the Executive Secretary-General, C. As from 1 January 2017, he performed the duties of adviser to the Deputy Secretary-General responsible for the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and crisis response, namely D, and, subsequently, from 1 May 2020, E.4 Since his name was not included on the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AD 14 under the 2017 promotion exercise, the [appellant] brought an action before the General Court challenging the EEAS’s decision of 9 November 2017 not to promote him. By judgment of 10 October 2019, Colombani v EEAS (T‑372/18, … EU:T:2019:734), the General Court annulled that decision on the ground that the general implementing provisions applied by the EEAS to the 2017 promotion exercise were unlawful in so far as they did not permit a comparative and objective examination of the merits of officials.5 On 6 August 2020, the [appellant] brought an action before the General Court seeking annulment of the alleged decision on the part of the EEAS not to comply with the judgment of 10 October 2019, Colombani v EEAS (T‑372/18, … EU:T:2019:734), and of the decisions rejecting his applications for the posts of Head of EU Delegation to Korea, Uzbekistan and North Macedonia. He also sought annulment of the EEAS’s decision not to grant him access to the documents relating to those procedures, in particular the comparative data of the candidates selected during the pre-selection procedure. By order of 12 February 2021, Colombani v EEAS (T‑507/20, … EU:T:2021:95), that case was removed from the [General] Court’s register following [the amicable agreement].6 Under the terms of the amicable agreement, the EEAS undertook to promote the [appellant] to grade AD 14, step 1, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018 (point 1 of the amicable agreement). The EEAS also undertook to provide the [appellant] with the information relating to the qualifications and professional experience of the candidates which the panel had considered best to meet the pre-selection criteria which had then been taken into account for the comparison of the qualifications and merits of the candidates selected in the pre-selection procedures for the posts of Head of EU Delegation to North Macedonia, Algeria, Azerbaijan and Norway and for the post of Director of North Africa and the Middle East within the EEAS, in accordance with the applicable rules of law and, in particular as regards data protection rules, in line with the opinion of the EEAS Data Protection Officer (point 2 of the amicable agreement).7 On 18 February 2021, the [appellant] submitted a request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations concerning, in their capacity as successive hierarchical superiors, the former Executive Secretary-General of the EEAS, C, one of the former Deputy Secretaries-General of the EEAS, D, and one of the current Deputy Secretaries-General of the EEAS, E, and the Director-General for Budget and Administration, F.8 By email of 22 February 2021 addressed to F, the [appellant] invited F to confirm that the EEAS had no objections to the disclosure of the documents accompanying [that] request for assistance … to the Belgian judicial and administrative bodies in the context of a complaint procedure with the auditorat du travail de Bruxelles (Office of the Brussels Labour Auditor, Belgium). Furthermore, the [appellant] stated in that email that he wished to ensure that the EEAS had no objections in principle to the disclosure of the facts summarised in that request to one or more Members of the European Parliament. In his reply, sent by email of 23 February 2021, F invited the [appellant] to submit a request under Article 19 of the Staff Regulations and to identify the documents, the addressees and the purpose of the envisaged transmission of the documents. As regards the [appellant]’s intention to request the intervention of certain Members of the Parliament, F stated that such an approach did not form part of the procedure laid down in Article 19 of the Staff Regulations. In an email of 24 February 2021 sent to F, the [appellant] asked the EEAS to inform him whether some of the documents accompanying his request for assistance “[could] not be communicated to the Office of the Brussels Labour Auditor”.9 On 1 March 2021, the [appellant] brought an action before the General Court seeking annulment of the decisions rejecting the applications which he had submitted, first, for the post of Director of North Africa and the Middle East and, second, for the post of Head of EU Delegation to Canada. By judgment of 6 July 2022, Colombani v EEAS (T‑129/21, … EU:T:2022:424), the General Court dismissed that action. [The appellant brought an appeal against that judgment of the General Court, which the Court of Justice dismissed by judgment of 16 November 2023, Colombani v EEAS (C‑595/22 P, EU:C:2023:884)].10 By email of 28 April 2021, the Director of Human Resources, G, sent the [appellant] a preliminary analysis of his request for assistance, in which it was stated that the appointing authority intended to open an administrative investigation in respect of C and E. By contrast, as regards the claims relating to psychological harassment on account of the actions of D and F, [that] preliminary analysis stated that those claims were not justified by prima facie evidence.11 By email of 7 May 2021, the appellant sent the Director of Human Resources his observations on [that] preliminary analysis.12 The [appellant]’s salary statement for May 2021 referred, for the first time, to the fact that he was classified in grade AD 14, step 2. Furthermore, a retroactive adjustment of the [appellant]’s remuneration to grade AD 14 with effect from January 2018 was made on that salary statement.13 By the decision rejecting in part the request for assistance, signed by the Director of Human Resources, the appointing authority rejected the request for assistance as regards the [appellant]’s allegations relating to the psychological harassment of which he claimed to have been the victim as a result of the actions of D and F on the ground that they were not justified by prima facie evidence.14 On 1 August 2021, the [appellant] lodged, first, a complaint, registered under number R/412/21, concerning the alleged implied decision rejecting in part his request for assistance, as is apparent from the preliminary analysis which had been communicated to him on 28 April 2021, and, second, a complaint, registered under number R/413/21, concerning the alleged implied decision to promote him to grade AD 14 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018 as was brought to his attention by the transmission of his salary statement for May 2021.15 On 25 August 2021, the [appellant] became aware of the decision rejecting in part [the] request for assistance.16 On 13 September 2021, the [appellant] lodged a complaint, registered under number R/460/21, concerning [that decision].17 By letter of 25 November 2021, signed by … F, the EEAS formally informed the [appellant] of the decision of the appointing authority to promote him to grade AD 14, step 1, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018 under Article 266(1) TFEU and pursuant to the order of 12 February 2021, Colombani v EEAS (T‑507/20, … EU:T:2021:95), and in accordance with the amicable agreement, while stating that that promotion decision had been implemented and included in the [appellant]’s file in the Commission’s human resource management information system … as from 30 March 2021 and that the automatic progression towards the higher step had taken place on 1 January 2020.18 By decision of 26 November 2021, the Executive Secretary-General of the EEAS, L, as appointing authority, rejected complaints R/412/21 and R/460/21.19 On 29 November 2021, the [appellant] lodged a complaint, registered under number R/618/21, alleging failure by the EEAS to comply with the amicable agreement concerning, inter alia, paragraph 2 of that agreement.20 By decision of 30 November 2021, the appointing authority rejected complaint R/413/21.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.