# C_2023071EN.01003401.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/34

---

Action brought on 16 December 2022 — TT v Frontex

(Case T-787/22)

(2023/C 71/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: TT (represented by: J. Navas Marqués, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the undated decision notified on 17 October 2022 with internal reference number GSC/HR/2022 of the Management Board of the European Border Guard Agency (Frontex); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the undated decision notified on 17 October 2022 with internal reference number GSC/HR/2022 of the Management Board of the European Border Guard Agency (Frontex);

| — | annul the appraisal report of 2021 finalised in respect of the applicant by the notification of 18 March 2022 of the decision of the appeal assessor; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appraisal report of 2021 finalised in respect of the applicant by the notification of 18 March 2022 of the decision of the appeal assessor;

| — | agree to request the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to provide the Court with a copy of its report on the results of the 2021 investigation into employment harassment and misconduct against Frontex employees by its former executive director. |
| --- | --- |

—

agree to request the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to provide the Court with a copy of its report on the results of the 2021 investigation into employment harassment and misconduct against Frontex employees by its former executive director.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| — | First plea, claiming that the contested decision was issued by an incompetent body and infringed essential procedural requirements. The applicant alleges infringement by Frontex of Article 90(2) of the Regulation (1) laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community (Staff Regulations), of the principle of sound administration, of the right to be heard and of the legal principle of ‘duty to act with due diligence’, and that the management board of Frontex did not have competence to issue the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

First plea, claiming that the contested decision was issued by an incompetent body and infringed essential procedural requirements. The applicant alleges infringement by Frontex of Article 90(2) of the Regulation (1) laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community (Staff Regulations), of the principle of sound administration, of the right to be heard and of the legal principle of ‘duty to act with due diligence’, and that the management board of Frontex did not have competence to issue the contested decision.

| — | Second plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of essential procedural requirements by infringement of Article 6(3) and (5) and Article 8 of Management Board Decision No 46/2015 of 20 November 2015 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that there was no formal dialogue with the reporting officer prior to the 2021 appraisal report. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of essential procedural requirements by infringement of Article 6(3) and (5) and Article 8 of Management Board Decision No 46/2015 of 20 November 2015 laying down general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and implementing the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that there was no formal dialogue with the reporting officer prior to the 2021 appraisal report.

| — | Third plea, alleging failure to state reasons in the contested decision of the Frontex management board, infringement of the rights of defence and infringement of Article 2 of Frontex Management Board Decision No 46/2015 of 20 November 2015 with regard to the 2021 appraisal report. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third plea, alleging failure to state reasons in the contested decision of the Frontex management board, infringement of the rights of defence and infringement of Article 2 of Frontex Management Board Decision No 46/2015 of 20 November 2015 with regard to the 2021 appraisal report.

| — | Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality and misuse of power by the [confidential] (2) reporting officer and the [confidential] (3) appeal assessor who drafted the 2021 appraisal report. The applicant claims infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 3(2) and (3) of Frontex Management Board Decision No 46/2015 of 20 November 2015. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality and misuse of power by the [confidential] (2) reporting officer and the [confidential] (3) appeal assessor who drafted the 2021 appraisal report. The applicant claims infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 3(2) and (3) of Frontex Management Board Decision No 46/2015 of 20 November 2015.

---

(1)  Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and of the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 L 045, p. 1385).

(2)  Confidential information omitted.

(3)  Confidential information omitted.

---