do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-589/23: Action brought on 24 September 2023 — UA v Frontex
Date: 2023-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), paramilitary force, principle of legal certainty, recruitment, transparency in decision-making








C_202301307EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/1307


11.12.2023





Action brought on 24 September 2023 — UA v Frontex
(Case T-589/23)
(C/2023/1307)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: UA (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Kila, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the implied decision of the Agency, by which it refused to invite the applicant for a second interview allowing her the possibility to be timely recruited for the position of the European Border and Coast Guard Officer, Standing Corps intermediate level in Frontex and, thus, ultimately rejecting her application;










—


annul the decision of 16 June 2023 of the Executive Director, by which the complaint of 30 January 2023 of the applicant against the implied decision of the Agency was rejected as inadmissible; and,










—


order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.





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 infringement of the recruitment notice and of the principle of legal certainty.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency and good administration, and more specifically lack of sufficient and adequate reasoning.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1307/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-580/23: Action brought on 24 September 2023 — QN v eu-LISA
Date: 2023-09-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, access to information, administrative procedure, defamation, disclosure of information, personal data, protection of privacy, provision of documents, right to information








C_202300540EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/540


6.11.2023





Action brought on 24 September 2023 — QN v eu-LISA
(Case T-580/23)
(C/2023/540)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: QN (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 action;










—


annul the contested acts;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action against the decision to reject his request for access to all the documents directly linked to the allegations concerning him in the context of an administrative inquiry opened in his regard and closed without further action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging that the defendant erred in its interpretation and application of Article 19(2) of Decision 2022-81 on laying down general implementing provisions on the conduct of administrative inquiries and disciplinary proceedings. The applicant claims that the basis for the refusal, namely the protection of the legitimate interests of third parties, cannot in this case justify the refusal to disclose the documents requested.










2.


Second plea, alleging failure to state reasons, on the grounds that the contested acts in no way explain why the reservation relating to the protection of the interests of third parties is likely to apply in this case.










3.


Third plea, alleging infringement of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and disregard for the objective of combating impunity, in particular because the defendant’s refusal to grant the applicant’s request deprived him of the possibility of finding, in the complaints lodged against him, evidence of defamation which could subsequently form the basis of administrative or legal proceedings.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/540/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)