Case T-854/25: Action brought on 12 December 2025 – OT v Frontex
Date: 2025-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, cruel and degrading treatment, data protection, dismissal, harassment at work, indemnification, probationary period, professional career, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_202600673EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/673


9.2.2026






Action brought on 12 December 2025 – OT v Frontex


(Case T-854/25)

(C/2026/673)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: OT (represented by: J. Navas Marqués, lawyer)

Defendant: The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of Frontex, received on 14 October 2025, in response to the earlier complaint submitted against the decision of Frontex, which was served on 28 March 2025, relating to decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period.










—


Order Frontex to provide the Court with the complete administrative file, including all internal communications, emails, reports, memos and documents relating to the training period, the investigation (or lack thereof) of the applicant's complaints and the actions of the staff responsible, as well as documentation relating to the functioning of the theoretical and practical assessment processes carried out at the training centre.










—


Order Frontex, in accordance with Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, to compensate the applicant for the entirety of the damage suffered as a result of the wrongful acts and statutory breaches it committed:






—


in respect of material damage, in the amount of income not received from 31 March 2025 until the date of the judgment, provisionally calculated in the amount of EUR 67 331,50 as at 12 December 2025, by reference to the applicant’s approximate monthly remuneration, together with the corresponding statutory interest, updated until the effective date of the future judicial decision;










—


in respect of non-material damage, prolonged exposure to institutional harassment, bullying and infringement of the fundamental right to dignity and moral integrity, compensation of EUR 25 000 is sought;










—


in respect of the loss of professional opportunity, since the dismissal deprived the applicant of a real and proven probability of continuing to work as a permanent member of staff, of being part of future missions, of salary progression and of consolidating a career within the Agency and of obtaining merits through internal and external competitions, additional compensation of EUR 25 000 is sought.














—


Order Frontex to fully restore the applicant’s statutory status, with all the corresponding administrative and professional effects, as if the contested decision had not been taken, in application of the principle of restitutio in integrum.










—


Order Frontex to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The first plea in law alleges an infringement of the duty to provide assistance (Article 24 of the Staff Regulations) and of the duty of care. The applicant submits that there was inaction or an inadequate institutional response to complaints of harassment, intimidation, surveillance and degrading treatment, as well as a failure to take protective measures, minimum steps and consideration of the interests of the agent in a context of particular statutory vulnerability. The applicant expressly states that the contested decision recognises the time frame and the lack of an effective response before the deadline, and that the decision was taken without neutralising the context complained of.










2.


The second plea in law alleges a breach of the obligation to prevent and prosecute harassment, hostile treatment, intimidation and all degrading treatment in the working environment. The applicant alleges that there was a hostile and degrading training/working environment and that there was a failure effectively to implement internal mechanisms and prevention policies, attributable to Frontex staff and external staff under operational coordination, including the role of the Confidential Counsellor.










3.


The third plea in law alleges a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of power in the assessment of the probationary period. The applicant challenges the negative assessment on the grounds that it is based on subjective and generic findings, incompatible with the training record which was presented as satisfactory, and submits that the probationary period was used for purposes unrelated to the interests of the service, connected with the context of complaints and irregularities.










4.


The fourth plea in law alleges an infringement of the right to be heard and of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; ‘the Charter’), as well as inadequate reasoning. The applicant submits that the hearing and the procedure for presenting the arguments were flawed in practice due to a lack of real consideration of the evidence and allegations (including irregularities in examination and harassment), and due to generic reasoning which prevents effective judicial review.










5.


The fifth plea in law alleges an infringement of the duty of impartiality and of the principle of objective assessment. The applicant submits that there was a lack of objective/subjective impartiality since persons involved in the reported conflicts and incidents acted as assessors or influenced the report, which affected its reliability and the legality of the final decision.










6.


The sixth plea in law alleges an infringement of Article 31 of the Charter (fair and just working conditions). The applicant alleges that the working and training environment (pressure, surveillance, degrading treatment, lack of protection and reprisals) infringed the requirements for fair and dignified working conditions, and that the dismissal decision was taken without restoring a fair and neutral framework.










7.


The seventh plea in law alleges an infringement of the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725). (1) The applicant alleges the disclosure of personal/professional information in an unofficial chat by the Confidential Counsellor and the use/disclosure of data related to the applicant’s situation, which qualifies as unlawful processing and is contrary to confidentiality obligations.










8.


The eighth plea in law alleges a breach of the principle of administrative good faith and the principle of legitimate expectations. The applicant submits that an unexpected decision was adopted, which was inconsistent with how the training process described unfolded and was made in the absence of warnings/remedial measures, and on the late or insufficient management of the allegations, which breached legitimate expectations and the standard of administrative consistency and foreseeability.










9.


The ninth plea in law alleges an infringement of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (2) and Frontex’s internal policy. The applicant submits that those provisions protect a complainant against reprisals, establish a temporal connection between the internal complaints (including training irregularities) and the intensification of harassment, the drafting of the negative report and the final decision, and the applicant alleges a lack of operational separation and preventive measures.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ 2019 L 305, p. 17).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/673/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)