Дело T-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2021 г.

Текст

... adversely affecting the applicant – Action manifestly inadmissible)

In Case T‑462/20,

ZU, represented by C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by I. Melo Sampaio, L. Vernier and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, in the first place, annulment, first, of the Commission’s letter of 5 September 2019 refusing to answer the applicant’s questions and, second, of the Commission’s letter of 6 April 2020 rejecting his complaint and, in the second place, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those measures,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of R. da Silva Passos, President, I. Reine and L. Truchot (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Background to the dispute

1. The applicant, ZU, entered the service of the European Commission on 1 June 2007, when he was assigned to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in Brussels (Belgium) until 29 February 2016.

2. As from 1 March 2016, the applicant was assigned to the European External Action Service (EEAS), within the European Union Delegation to Russia (‘the delegation’), based in Moscow (Russia). He held the post of Trade Affairs Manager in the Trade and Economic Section of the delegation.

3. By note of 14 September 2018, the Commission informed the applicant of its intention to transfer him back to his original Directorate-General, OLAF, in Brussels. In order to justify that decision, the Commission stated, in particular, as follows:

‘… you have not demonstrated the necessary ...