Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1898

(Case T-113/25)

(C/2025/1898)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HT (represented by: A. Guillerme, T. Bontinck and L. Jakobs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the contested decision;

—order the ECCC to pay the applicant EUR 10 001, subject to increase in the course of the proceedings, as compensation for the harm suffered;

—order the ECCC to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action against the decision of the European Cybersecurity Industrial, Technology and Research Competence Centre to reject his application for the position of Head of Administration (AD 12) in the context of selection procedure ECCC/TA/2024/12/HOA, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging the irregular composition of the Selection Committee, lack of competence of the author of the decision and infringement of the principle of good administration (duty of impartiality). The applicant claims that the composition of the Selection Committee was not communicated to the candidates and was irregular. The Executive Director and, in that capacity the appointing authority (‘the AIPN’) of the ECCC, could not legitimately be appointed as Chairman of the Selection Committee and, a fortiori, was not competent to take the decision not to select the applicant for the next phase of the selection procedure. Furthermore, there are reasonable doubts as to the objective impartiality of the Executive Director due to the concurrent exercise of functions as Chairman of the Selection Committee and the AIPN in the context of that selection procedure.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules set out in the vacancy notice. That plea in law is divided into two parts.

(a)First part: the ECCC Selection Committee did not respect the selection criteria set out in the vacancy notice and made a manifest error of assessment. First, the selection criteria specified and those applied during the assessment of the applicant’s application for the position are not the same. Second, one selection criterion was added even though provision was not made for such a requirement at that stage of the selection procedure. Third, the selection criterion linked to the assessment of the candidates’ professional experience was not assessed transparently and was given too much weight. Fourth, the marking of the ‘advantageous’ criteria, linked to understanding of the cybersecurity domain or of a related area is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Fifth, the ‘advantageous’ criteria are given too much weight in comparison to the essential criteria.

(b)Second part: the ECCC infringed Article 10 of the vacancy notice by not proceeding, at the applicant’s request, to review his application for the position. In addition, it appears that the human resources department, which replied to the request for review of the applicant’s application for the position, was not competent to deal with that request.

3.Third plea in law, alleging insufficient reasons given for the contested decision.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1898/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—