Action brought on 2 September 2025 – LH v Frontex

(Case T-601/25)

(C/2025/5602)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: LH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the decision of 3 December 2024 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probationary period;

—	annul, in so far as necessary, to the extent that it supplements or amends the decision of 3 December 2024, the decision of 29 May 2025 rejecting the complaint;

—	order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 7 500 by way of compensation for non-material damage and EUR 4 524,68 by way of compensation for material damage resulting from the defendant’s misconduct;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging first of all, infringement of Article 1(1) of Decision No AAD-2023-075 of 20 April 2023 laying down the rules on setting of objectives for the assessment of performance of temporary and contract staff for their probationary period, as well as of seconded national experts at the start of their secondment; next, the existence of abnormal working conditions; and, last, unequal treatment because the objectives were not set within a month following the start of his employment and because that factor was not taken into account in the context of adoption of the decision adversely affecting him.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks predictability in so far as no negative remark had been made before the meeting relating to the probationary period.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the probation report is biased, lacks objectivity and is not founded on a substantiated, appropriate and sufficient factual basis.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the applicant’s performance, including in the light of the objectives set six months after the start of his employment and having regard to his level of responsibility.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty of care, lack of proportionality, undue delay in the procedure and, in general, maladministration.