Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Haeberlen v ENISA

(Case T-632/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Haeberlen (Swisttal, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

Consequently,

annul the decision of 21 October 2015;

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 20 May 2016, received on 23 May 2016, rejecting the complaint;

order compensation, assessed at EUR 3 000, to be paid for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant;

order the defendant to pay all of 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 the unlawfulness of Regulation (EU) No 422/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 5) and of Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12) (‘the contested regulations’). In particular, the adoption of the contested regulations is vitiated by a number of irregularities, inter alia, infringement of essential procedural requirements, of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 10 of Annex XI to the applicable Staff Regulations prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), infringement of Articles 10, 11 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of acquired rights and proportionality, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation, and of the rules on social dialogue.

2.    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of the obligation to state reasons and of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

____________