This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62023TN1038
Case T-1038/23: Action brought on 8 October 2023 — UB v Frontex
Case T-1038/23: Action brought on 8 October 2023 — UB v Frontex
Case T-1038/23: Action brought on 8 October 2023 — UB v Frontex
OJ C, C/2023/1310, 11.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1310/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN Series C |
|
C/2023/1310 |
11.12.2023 |
Action brought on 8 October 2023 — UB v Frontex
(Case T-1038/23)
(C/2023/1310)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: UB (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Kila, lawyers)
Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the implied decision of the Agency, by which it refused to invite the applicant for a second interview and thus to allow for his opportunity to be timely recruited for the position of the European Border and Coast Guard Officer, Standing Corps — intermediate level in Frontex; |
|
— |
annul the decision of 29 June 2023 of the Executive Director, by which the complaint of 14 February 2023 of the applicant against the implied decision of the Agency was rejected as inadmissible; and, |
|
— |
order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the recruitment notice and of the principle of legal certainty. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of transparency and good administration, and more specifically lack of sufficient and adequate reasoning. |
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1310/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)