# C_2014409EN.01005801.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/58 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Appeal brought on 22 September 2014 by Bernat Montagut Viladot against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut v Commission

(Case T-696/14 P)

2014/C 409/79

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Bernat Montagut Viladot (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by F. Rodríguez-Gigirey Pérez and J. Simón Sánchez, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut v Commission; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | uphold the action brought by Mr Montagut Viladot in Case F-160/12, holding it to be admissible and well founded; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | grant the form of order sought by that party at first instance in accordance with Article 139 of the Rules of Procedure, annulling the decision dated 8 February 2012 by which Mr Montagut was excluded from the reserve list of selected candidates; and |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs. |
| - | -------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut Viladot v Commission, rejecting the action brought by the then applicant against the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/206/11 (AD 5) not to include his name on the reserve list drawn up following that competition.

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law resulting from the interpretation of the rules in Title 3, point 2, of the annex to the competition notice made by the Civil Service Tribunal and from the interpretation of the Spanish legislation on university diplomas.
—
It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal focuses exclusively on the fact that Mr Montagut’s university diploma is not an ‘official diploma’, a fact which he neither contests nor denies, without considering, contrary to its own case-law, that Mr Montagut’s diploma is a university diploma, which is the condition required in the competition notice, namely, ‘a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma’. | — | It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal focuses exclusively on the fact that Mr Montagut’s university diploma is not an ‘official diploma’, a fact which he neither contests nor denies, without considering, contrary to its own case-law, that Mr Montagut’s diploma is a university diploma, which is the condition required in the competition notice, namely, ‘a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma’. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal focuses exclusively on the fact that Mr Montagut’s university diploma is not an ‘official diploma’, a fact which he neither contests nor denies, without considering, contrary to its own case-law, that Mr Montagut’s diploma is a university diploma, which is the condition required in the competition notice, namely, ‘a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma’. | | |

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the principle of legal certainty.
—
It is claimed in this regard that the Tribunal, in its judgment, failed properly and correctly to consider the Spanish legislation — Ley de Universidades 6/2001 — in connection with Mr Montagut’s university qualification for the purposes of inclusion on the reserve list, failed to comply with its own case-law in similar cases (F-97/12 Thomé v Commission), and disregarded the conditions of the notice in Title 3, point 2, of the annex to the competition notice. | — | It is claimed in this regard that the Tribunal, in its judgment, failed properly and correctly to consider the Spanish legislation — Ley de Universidades 6/2001 — in connection with Mr Montagut’s university qualification for the purposes of inclusion on the reserve list, failed to comply with its own case-law in similar cases (F-97/12 Thomé v Commission), and disregarded the conditions of the notice in Title 3, point 2, of the annex to the competition notice. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | It is claimed in this regard that the Tribunal, in its judgment, failed properly and correctly to consider the Spanish legislation — Ley de Universidades 6/2001 — in connection with Mr Montagut’s university qualification for the purposes of inclusion on the reserve list, failed to comply with its own case-law in similar cases (F-97/12 Thomé v Commission), and disregarded the conditions of the notice in Title 3, point 2, of the annex to the competition notice. | | |

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
—
It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal, in its judgment, did not correctly assess Mr Montagut’s legitimate expectation that he would be included on the reserve list after the communication of 12 August 2011, as the judgment under appeal refers only to compliance with the applicable rules. | — | It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal, in its judgment, did not correctly assess Mr Montagut’s legitimate expectation that he would be included on the reserve list after the communication of 12 August 2011, as the judgment under appeal refers only to compliance with the applicable rules. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal, in its judgment, did not correctly assess Mr Montagut’s legitimate expectation that he would be included on the reserve list after the communication of 12 August 2011, as the judgment under appeal refers only to compliance with the applicable rules. | | |

---