# C_2022424EN.01005301.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/53

---

Action brought on 26 September 2022 — ST v Frontex

(Case T-600/22)

(2022/C 424/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ST (represented by: F. Gatta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that, after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 265 TFEU, Frontex unlawfully failed to act, by refraining from taking the decision to withdraw the financing of all or part of its activities in the Aegean Sea region, to suspend those activities or to terminate them in whole or in part, in accordance with Article 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896 (1), or by not providing duly justified grounds for failing to implement the relevant measure within the meaning of Article 46(6) of that regulation, and, further, that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s preliminary request. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 265 TFEU, Frontex unlawfully failed to act, by refraining from taking the decision to withdraw the financing of all or part of its activities in the Aegean Sea region, to suspend those activities or to terminate them in whole or in part, in accordance with Article 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896 (1), or by not providing duly justified grounds for failing to implement the relevant measure within the meaning of Article 46(6) of that regulation, and, further, that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s preliminary request.

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision of 27 July 2022 of Frontex, refusing to act upon the invitation to act in accordance with Article 46(4). |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision of 27 July 2022 of Frontex, refusing to act upon the invitation to act in accordance with Article 46(4).

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that, after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 265 TFEU, it has unlawfully failed to act, by refraining from taking the decision to withdraw the financing of all or part of its activities in the Aegean Sea Region, to suspend those activities or to terminate them in whole or in part, in accordance with Article 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896, or by not providing duly justified grounds for failing to implement the relevant measure within the meaning of Article 46(6) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that, after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 265 TFEU, it has unlawfully failed to act, by refraining from taking the decision to withdraw the financing of all or part of its activities in the Aegean Sea Region, to suspend those activities or to terminate them in whole or in part, in accordance with Article 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896, or by not providing duly justified grounds for failing to implement the relevant measure within the meaning of Article 46(6) of that regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that, in the alternative, should the Court consider that Frontex’s reply on the preliminary request pursuant to Article 265 TFEU constitutes a definition of position bringing the failure to act to an end, then its refusal to act in accordance with the applicant’s invitation to act forms the basis of an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that, in the alternative, should the Court consider that Frontex’s reply on the preliminary request pursuant to Article 265 TFEU constitutes a definition of position bringing the failure to act to an end, then its refusal to act in accordance with the applicant’s invitation to act forms the basis of an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ 2019 L 295, p. 1).

---