—

The Executive Director (ED) was found to have a conflict of interests.

—

The second recommendation, contrary to the first (made by the Deputy-Executive Director (DEDC)), was influenced by those external circumstances. Only the first recommendation, in favour of a renewal of the contract, should have been taken into account.

—

Those circumstances render invalid the decision of an authority lacking competence, due to a lack of impartiality and a lack of information, from persons or authorities (DEDC or European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)) who are able to assess the specific needs in the field of data protection and compliance (such as HR) more generally.

—

The renewal procedure for temporary agents’ contracts, fixed by internal decision, was not complied with (a ‘new’ negative recommendation was issued, with no new facts or regular reconsideration of the relevant information taken as a whole).

—

The applicant argues that there was no re-consultation with HR after the change of position of the DEDC or information objectively justifying the ‘urgent need’ for a different profile.

—

The contested decision is vitiated by errors and contradictions in its reasoning (examples of incidents already known of, not attributable to the applicant).

—

The grounds put forward to justify the non-renewal of the contract (enhanced compliance, data protection, etc.) are artificial or inconsistent with the very positive assessments of the applicant.

—

The administration misused its power, rejecting a successful agent for reasons unrelated to the interest of the service.

—

The incidents relied on (irregular payments, compliance problems) are not the applicant’s responsibility and cannot legitimise a sudden change in the proposal to renew his contract.

—

The real grounds were not clearly communicated to the applicant, preventing him from submitting a meaningful defence before the final decision.

—

The introduction of new arguments and requirements not raised previously (for example, a law degree) by the ED prevented a fair exchange of views, in particular on the basis of HR advice.

—

The failure to take into account the applicant’s findings and the chronology of internal communications demonstrates an infringement of his fundamental right to sound administration and an infringement of his right to be heard.