Action brought on 20 April 2021 — SB v eu-LISA

(Case T-217/21)

(2021/C 228/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SB (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the application;

— annul the contested measures;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action for annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 3 August 2020 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probationary period, the latter relies on six pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons in so far as the probationary report, in particular, does not indicate any concrete fact whatsoever and merely refers to abstract assessments, not in any way substantiated by facts or references to the alleged failures of the applicant to achieve his objectives. The applicant also complains that the authority empowered to conclude contracts countersigned the probationary report without indicating which of the assessments of the authors of the report it endorsed.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rule requiring ‘normal conditions’ for the course of the traineeship, in so far as the applicant is criticised for unsatisfactory performance of tasks which, he claims, were never assigned to him as well as for insufficient knowledge of the English language, despite the fact that the defendant had twice verified that knowledge prior to the applicant’s recruitment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, in so far as the applicant was not permitted to comment on the report of the formal dialogue with the reporting officer for his probationary period, and in so far as he was invited to a hearing by the authority empowered to conclude contracts only after it had taken the dismissal decision.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities consisting, inter alia, in (i) the failure to respect the time limit for the procedure for drawing up the probationary report, (ii) the presence of an unexpected person during the formal assessment dialogue, (iii) the failure to consult the applicant’s direct supervisor and (iv) the lack of any reference in the probationary report about the assignment of new objectives to the applicant in the course of the probationary period.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of Article 84 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, for having encouraged the applicant to make a great effort to improve near the end of his probationary period, so that he could be confirmed in his post, and then informing him that that improvement was too late, even though the administration was late in launching the procedures. In the same context, the applicant criticises the defendant for not extending his probationary period, which would have allowed his improvement to be ‘measured’, while also taking into account the constraints relating to the health crisis.