# C_2023063EN.01005701.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/57

---

Action brought on 6 December 2022 — TB v ENISA

(Case T-760/22)

(2023/C 63/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the 2020 CDR resulting from ENISA Executive Director Decision 8/2022 of 3 February 2022 in so far as it contains the following comments:






  — | Under B.1 ‘Efficiency’, page 4 — point 2) produce anti-fraud policy, update whistleblowing policy and code of conduct:






  — | ‘[...] The whistleblowing policy was updated by PO as a draft concept but was not taken further to receive prior approval from the COM services that was a specific precondition (review clause in the MB Decision) to have the whistleblowing policy reviewed. For the code of conduct for ENISA, the COM decision in a form of its publication (book) was annexed to the MB Decision on Antifraud strategy. The code of conduct therefore was not adopted by the MB. The antifraud strategy action plan for 2021 foresees to prepare a code of conduct in a form of a decision of the MB.’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the 2020 CDR resulting from ENISA Executive Director Decision 8/2022 of 3 February 2022 in so far as it contains the following comments:

—

Under B.1 ‘Efficiency’, page 4 — point 2) produce anti-fraud policy, update whistleblowing policy and code of conduct:

—

‘[...] The whistleblowing policy was updated by PO as a draft concept but was not taken further to receive prior approval from the COM services that was a specific precondition (review clause in the MB Decision) to have the whistleblowing policy reviewed. For the code of conduct for ENISA, the COM decision in a form of its publication (book) was annexed to the MB Decision on Antifraud strategy. The code of conduct therefore was not adopted by the MB. The antifraud strategy action plan for 2021 foresees to prepare a code of conduct in a form of a decision of the MB.’

| — | Under B.1 ‘Efficiency’, page 4 — point 3) Achieve an optimal commitment rate:






  — | ‘[...] but budget management could still be improved (particular for monitoring of C8 and carry forwards).’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Under B.1 ‘Efficiency’, page 4 — point 3) Achieve an optimal commitment rate:

—

‘[...] but budget management could still be improved (particular for monitoring of C8 and carry forwards).’

| — | Under Point B.2 ‘Ability’, page 4:






  — | ‘[...]. However, in PO from the financial flow perspective there were several situations that led to the registry in exceptions, mainly as a posteriori commitment or the wrong use of C8 and C1 funds, one with materiality above 10 000,00 euros.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Under Point B.2 ‘Ability’, page 4:

—

‘[...]. However, in PO from the financial flow perspective there were several situations that led to the registry in exceptions, mainly as a posteriori commitment or the wrong use of C8 and C1 funds, one with materiality above 10 000,00 euros.’

| — | Under Point B.3 ‘Conduct’, page 6:






  — | ‘[...] However, this has also led to some situations that an interim agent represents the agency with international partners for common messaging (ECSM preparations with US partners), as an example.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Under Point B.3 ‘Conduct’, page 6:

—

‘[...] However, this has also led to some situations that an interim agent represents the agency with international partners for common messaging (ECSM preparations with US partners), as an example.’

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 26 August 2022 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the 2020 CDR and against ENISA Executive Director Decision 8/2022 of 3 February 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 26 August 2022 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the 2020 CDR and against ENISA Executive Director Decision 8/2022 of 3 February 2022;

| — | 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

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 2020 Career Development Report (CDR) and the appeal decision are illegal in so far as there has been no real dialogue and the rerunning of the appraisal procedure is vitiated by a violation of Administrative Notice 1/2021, page 9, and of Article 6(3) of Decision No MB/2015/15. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the 2020 Career Development Report (CDR) and the appeal decision are illegal in so far as there has been no real dialogue and the rerunning of the appraisal procedure is vitiated by a violation of Administrative Notice 1/2021, page 9, and of Article 6(3) of Decision No MB/2015/15.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the 2020 CDR and the appeal decision are vitiated by manifest errors of appreciation and insufficient motivation and by a violation of Article 5 of Decision No MB/2015/15 and of the Administrative Notice 1/2021, pages 11 and 12. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the 2020 CDR and the appeal decision are vitiated by manifest errors of appreciation and insufficient motivation and by a violation of Article 5 of Decision No MB/2015/15 and of the Administrative Notice 1/2021, pages 11 and 12.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the 2020 CDR and the appeal decision are vitiated by an infringement of the rules of objectivity and impartiality, by a breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by a violation of the duty of care and assistance and also alleging violation of the duty to motivate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the 2020 CDR and the appeal decision are vitiated by an infringement of the rules of objectivity and impartiality, by a breach of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by a violation of the duty of care and assistance and also alleging violation of the duty to motivate.

---