18.10.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/23

(Case T-507/21)

(2021/C 422/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Migadakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Bicard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—declare his application admissible and well founded;

—annul the decision made against him;

—order ENISA to pay the costs;

—reserve the applicant the right to raise all other pleas of fact and of law to be argued at the appropriate time and place;

—reserve the applicant the right to produce, in addition to the documents listed in the body of the present action, all documents at the appropriate time and place;

—reserve the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea, alleging violation of the legal framework. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the vacancy notice did not provide for remote examination and that he did not give his consent for remote written and oral examinations. The applicant adds that he did not have the choice between face-to-face and remote examinations. Moreover, according to the applicant, a remote examination in July 2020 was not justified because Greece had then been in the green zone since 4 May 2020, the date on which the lockdown ended. Finally, the applicant maintains that he was rejected for having obtained 60 points out of 100, whereas only eligible candidates having obtained 75/100 succeeded, it being specified that nothing was provided for in the notice concerning such a level of mark to be achieved.

2.Second plea, alleging violation of the principle of equality on the ground that the competition was held in poor conditions. The applicant was therefore not treated equally with the other candidates.

3.Third plea, alleging violation of the principle of objectivity of marks. The applicant submits in this regard that the questions in the oral and written examinations and the marks for the applicant’s answers were not objective.