# C_2021481EN.01003001.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/30

---

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — TB v ENISA

(Case T-560/21)

(2021/C 481/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TB (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision taken by the ENISA Selection Board not to place the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates for the post of Head of Unit of the Executive Director Office (TA/AD 9) — Ref. ENISA-TA-70-AD- 2020-04; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by the ENISA Selection Board not to place the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates for the post of Head of Unit of the Executive Director Office (TA/AD 9) — Ref. ENISA-TA-70-AD- 2020-04;

| — | annul the decision taken by the ENISA Selection Board not to place the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates regarding the post of Head of Unit of Corporate Support Services (TA/AD 9) — Ref. ENISA TA71-AD-2020-05; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken by the ENISA Selection Board not to place the applicant’s name on the list of successful candidates regarding the post of Head of Unit of Corporate Support Services (TA/AD 9) — Ref. ENISA TA71-AD-2020-05;

| — | annul also, in so far as necessary, the defendant’s decision of 8 June 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the abovementioned decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul also, in so far as necessary, the defendant’s decision of 8 June 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the abovementioned decisions;

| — | order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Executive Director Office (EDO) and Corporate Support Services (CSS) decisions are illegal, in so far as they result from the decision of 5 August 2020 publishing two vacancy notices for the posts of EDO and CSS Heads of Unit which is also illegal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Executive Director Office (EDO) and Corporate Support Services (CSS) decisions are illegal, in so far as they result from the decision of 5 August 2020 publishing two vacancy notices for the posts of EDO and CSS Heads of Unit which is also illegal.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and lack of sufficient motivation of the EDO and CSS decisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and lack of sufficient motivation of the EDO and CSS decisions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the EDO decision is vitiated by a lack of impartiality of the Selection Board and by illegality — Breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and breach of Article 14 of ENISA Management Board Decision MB/2013/6. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the EDO decision is vitiated by a lack of impartiality of the Selection Board and by illegality — Breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and breach of Article 14 of ENISA Management Board Decision MB/2013/6.

---