CELEX: 62021TN0511
Language: en
Date: 2021-08-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-511/21: Action brought on 18 August 2021 — TB v ENISA

29.11.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 481/29
            
         
      Action brought on 18 August 2021 — TB v ENISA
      (Case T-511/21)
      (2021/C 481/42)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: TB (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision taken by ENISA to renew the applicant’s employment contract, in so far as it reassigns the applicant to a post with non-managerial functions, this decision being formalised by the signed version of the document sent by ENISA on 13 October 2020 and presented as an amendment of her contract and by the signature of such document by both the applicant and ENISA on 26 October 2020;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 12 May 2021, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the renewal decision;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the compensation of the material prejudice and the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the renewal decision is illegal, in so far as it results from the reorganisation process launched by ENISA, which, it is alleged, has not been carried out in the interests of the service — Breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, and breach of Articles 18(1) and 20(2)(a) of Management Board decision MB/2018/14.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The reorganisation process is vitiated by a lack of clarity and transparency, by a breach of the principle of legal certainty, by a manifest error of assessment and by a violation of principle 6 of Decision MB/2020/5.
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The reorganisation process is vitiated by a lack of motivation.
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The reorganisation process has been carried out in violation of Annex 1 of the Administrative Notice.
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The reorganisation process has been carried out in violation of principles 7 and 8 of Decision MB/2020/5, of the principle of good administration, of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in violation of the duty of care.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging that the renewal decision is illegal in so far as the applicant’s contract was not renewed through a transparent and fair process — Breach of Article 1 of ED Decision 38/2017, and of point 5.1 of the Standard Operating Procedure, and breach of the duty of good administration.