14

The facts giving rise to the dispute are set out as follows in paragraphs 12 to 34 of the judgment under appeal: ‘12 The applicant started working for [the FRA] on 1 September 2007. She was employed as a member of the contract staff under Article 3(a) of the CEOS to carry out tasks in function group III, at grade 10, on a two-year contract. Her contract was renewed for a period of three years, expiring on 31 August 2012. Therefore, under Article 85(1) of the CEOS and Article 6(2) of Decision 2008/04, any further renewal of the agreement could only be for an indefinite period. 13 The applicant was assigned to the “Procurement and Finance” team in the “Administration” department. She performed the duties of an assistant. 14 A career development report (“the CDR”) was drawn up for each year of activity of the applicant. 15 In the CDR relating to the year 2008, out of a total of 20 points, namely 10 for efficiency, 6 for abilities and 4 for conduct in the service, the applicant was awarded a total of 13 points: 6.5 for efficiency, 3.5 for abilities and 3 for conduct in the service. 16 It is apparent from the CDR relating to the year 2009 that the applicant was awarded a total of 11.5 points: 6 for efficiency, 3.5 for abilities and 2 for conduct in the service. 17 It is apparent from paragraphs 3 to 7 of the application that, during the months of March 2010, November 2010, August 2011 and September 2011, and at an unspecified date in 2012, the applicant drew to the attention of the Director of the [FRA], under Article 22a of the Staff Regulations, various possible irregularities which she claimed had occurred in the [FRA]’s public procurement procedures and which she had come across in the course of her duties. 18 In the CDR relating to the year 2010, the applicant received the same assessment points as those in the 2009 CDR. The 2011 CDR has not been put before the Tribunal. 19 The appraisal of the applicant in respect of 2009 and 2010 was accompanied by negative comments made by the reporting officer. Thus, in the 2009 CDR, the reporting officer stated, inter alia, with regard to efficiency, that the applicant’s poor personal relations with other staff members had had an impact on her efficiency during the period being assessed and recommended that she should strive continuously to overcome the situation. Regarding conduct in the service, the reporting officer also referred to the applicant’s poor personal relations with colleagues. 20 In his response of 4 March 2011 to the complaint, brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, seeking a review of the mark awarded to her and the annulment of the reporting officer’s comments in the three headings of the 2009 CDR, the Director [of the FRA], acting as AACC, first decided to increase by half a point the mark for efficiency, which was changed to 6.5 points and, secondly, amended the comments under the heading “conduct in the service” as follows: “During the reporting period the jobholder had good working relationships with the Agency’s staff from other departments [of the FRA] but she had some difficulties to deal [sic] with some colleagues within her department. Efforts have been made by both the hierarchy and the jobholder to resolve the situation in a constructive way. A continuous effort should be dedicated [sic] to overcome this situation.” 21 As regards the 2010 CDR, the reporting officer stated, in relation to efficiency, that the continuation of the applicant’s poor personal relations with other staff members affected her efficiency during the appraisal period and recommended again that she strive continuously to overcome the situation. With regard to conduct in the service, the reporting officer wrote:“[d]uring the reporting period the jobholder had some difficulties to deal [sic] with some of her colleagues. Efforts have been dedicated by the hierarchy to resolve her frictions with other members of the staff in a constructive way. The situation continued to impact on the performance of the jobholder during the appraisal period. A further effort should be dedicated [sic] to overcome this situation.” 22 The applicant responded to the content of the 2010 CDR and made her disagreement known to the AACC by a letter of 18 April 2011, a letter of 4 May 2011 and an email of 15 May 2011, addressed to the Director, by which she also requested that the matter be referred to the Joint Evaluation Committee. In his response of 29 July 2011, the Director of the [FRA] rejected all the applicant’s arguments. 23 The applicant did not challenge the 2009 and 2010 CDRs before the Courts of the European Union. 24 In the context of the procedure for renewing contracts for members of the contract staff, established by Decision 2009/13, the applicant met her head of department on 30 January 2012 and, the following day, the applicant’s lawyers forwarded her letter of motivation to the Director of the [FRA], in which she expressed her desire to have her contract renewed. 25 On 21 February 2012, the applicant received by email an invitation to meet the Director of the [FRA] and the head of the “Human Resources and Planning” department (“the Human Resources department”) on 27 February 2012, an invitation which she initially accepted but which she requested be postponed until 28 February because, inter alia, she wanted her lawyer to attend. The meeting that was postponed to 28 February did not take place because the applicant took sick leave. 26 By email of 24 February 2012, the applicant’s head of department forwarded his opinion on the renewal of the applicant’s contract (“the head of department’s opinion”) to the Director of the [FRA]. In that opinion, structured around ten points, the head of department highlights certain information relating to a recent reorganisation of the department, which transferred tasks to colleagues in other departments, and to the main features of the applicant’s CDRs for the previous few years. 27 In that regard, the head of department states, inter alia, that the applicant’s CDRs for 2009 and 2010 were below the average for staff members; that, in 2011, the situation was unchanged; that the applicant has had problems with her colleagues, which have had an impact on her performance, and that, despite efforts made by her line management, the Human Resources department and the Director of the [FRA], and despite also the training given to the applicant, the situation remained unchanged. The head of department also states that the [FRA] had twice offered the applicant, in her own interests as much as in the [FRA]’s interests, reassignment to another department, which she refused. 28 On Monday 27 February 2012, at 10 a.m., the Director of the [FRA] organised a general meeting of all staff, during which he addressed the issue of whistleblowing within the [FRA]. 29 By a letter of 27 February 2012, communicated to the applicant on the same date, the Director of the [FRA] informed the applicant that, having studied her letter of motivation and the opinion of the head of department, he had taken a decision not to renew her contract on its expiry on 31 August 2012. The opinion of the head of department was annexed to that letter. 30 The reasons given by the Director of the [FRA] for the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract were, first, the [FRA]’s limited availability of budgetary resources, which obliged him to reconsider the allocation of posts to members of the contract staff, as was apparent from the opinion of the applicant’s head of department of 24 February 2012 and, secondly, the applicant’s efficiency and conduct in the service, both affected by her poor personal relations with colleagues, a situation which had not improved despite attempts by the hierarchy to resolve friction in a constructive way, in particular by reassignment to another department, which the applicant had refused. 31 The letter of 27 February 2012 contained a second decision by which the applicant was reassigned in the interests of the service, with immediate effect and for the last six months of her contract, to the “Communication and Awareness Raising” department. 32 On 5 March 2012, the applicant brought a complaint, under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, in which she disputes the merits of the decisions of the Director of the [FRA] not to renew her contract and to reassign her. 33 The applicant was on sick leave from 8 March 2012 until the end of her contract. 34 By decision dated 5 July 2012, the Director of the [FRA], acting as AACC, rejected the complaint brought on 5 March 2012.’