Action brought on 9 June 2021 – TB v ENISA

(Case T-322/21)

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 implicit decision taken by the ENISA Executive Director not to identify the post of Head of Unit of Policy Office and the post of Head of Unit of Finance and Procurement for internal mobility (the “implicit decision”);

The implicit decision has been revealed by:

the Administrative Notice 2020-11 presenting the conclusions of the dialogues for internal mobility of 1 September 2020, published on 3 September 2020 (the “Conclusions”) according to which three posts of Head of Units, corresponding namely to the Secured Infrastructure and Service Unit (COD1), the Data Security and Standardisation Unit (COD2) and the Operational Security Unit (COD3) have been identified for internal mobility;

the decisions of 5 August 2020 published on the ENISA website concerning two vacancies for open competition for the posts of Head of Unit for Executive Director Office and for Corporate Support Services.

in so far as necessary, annul the Conclusions and the decisions of 5 August 2020;

in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 3 March 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the implicit decision, the Conclusions and the decisions of 5 August 2020.

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging lack of clarity and transparency, breach of the principle of legal certainty, manifest error of assessment and violation of principle 6 of MB (Management Board) Decision 2020/5.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of motivation.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Annex 1 of the Administrative Notice.

4.     Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the 7th and 8th principles of the MB Decision 2020/5, violation of the principle of good administration and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and violation of the duty of care.

____________