Case T-263/25: Action brought on 18 April 2025 – Lami v Frontex
Date: 2025-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, flexible working hours, labour law, occupational safety, paid leave, part-time employment, staff regulations (EU), transparency in decision-making








C_202503307EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3307


24.6.2025






Action brought on 18 April 2025 – Lami v Frontex


(Case T-263/25)

(C/2025/3307)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Johan Lami (Pescara, Italy) (represented by: F. Bello, F. D. Onofrio and M. Lopopolo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the document issued by Frontex on 20 January 2025 (HRS/HR/2025) and, consequently, find that Frontex infringed the rules in force regarding annual leave in so far as it deducted from the applicant a number of days’ annual leave greater than the number of days actually enjoyed by the applicant; order Frontex to allocate to the applicant a number of days’ leave equal to the number of days unlawfully deducted;










—


in the alternative, should Frontex dispute the calculations relied on by the applicant concerning the number of days’ annual leave owing to him, arrange for the appointment of an expert.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of EU Directive 2003/88/EC (1) and of Decision 27/2023 of the Management Board of Frontex
By its first plea, the applicant alleges both an infringement of EU Directive 2003/88/EC in so far as it establishes the right for workers to enjoy a minimum period of paid annual leave of at least four weeks and of Decision 27/2023 of the Management Board of Frontex which implements Article 55 of the Staff Regulations in so far as it provides that leave is to be recalculated as regards work carried out under part-time or flexitime arrangements.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of regulations
By its second plea, the applicant alleges a misapplication of Article 57 of Regulation No 31/EEC, 11/EAEC, (2) on the basis that Frontex failed to grant the applicant 24 days’ annual leave, as provided for therein. In fact, Frontex’s management of annual leave runs counter to the rules in question in so far as, by applying the calculation method used by Frontex, the applicant has only 16 days’ annual leave instead of 24 days as provided for therein.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringements of health and safety regulations
In the third plea, the applicant infers infringement of health and safety rules, given that annual leave is one of the few rights in employment relations that is regarded as inalienable. As such, the employer is obliged to ensure that the worker takes paid annual leave by inviting him or her – including, where necessary, by doing so formally, namely in writing – to take such leave in good time so as to ensure that that leave is such as to provide the person concerned with the rest and relaxation that it is intended to provide. That is particularly the case taking into account that fact that the applicant works 12-hour shifts and, as such, is subject to a greater workload than those who work 8-hour shifts.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringements of the principles of equal treatment and transparency
In the fourth plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the principles of equal treatment and transparency as established by Directive 2000/78/EC (3) and Directive 2019/1152 (4) respectively. The calculation methods adopted by Frontex entail an infringement of the principle of equal treatment (those who work shifts of less than 8 hours actually have more annual leave than those who work 12-hour shifts) and of the principle of transparency as regards the working conditions applied to shift workers of Frontex who, due to the poor implementation of the accounting provisions governing annual leave, are forced to be subject to treatment which is both different and unforeseeable.






(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

(2)  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 the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1959-1962, p. 135).

(3)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(4)  Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union (OJ 2019 L 186, p. 105).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3307/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)