# C_2018161EN.01005301.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/53

---

Action brought on 22 February 2018 — VI v Commission

(Case T-109/18)

(2018/C 161/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: VI (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulation invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulation invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings under Article 270 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | annul, first, the decision of 14 November 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 13 July 2017, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for 50 000 euros in compensation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the decision of 14 November 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 13 July 2017, including the rejection of the applicant’s request for 50 000 euros in compensation;

| — | annul, second, the decision of 19 April 2017 of EPSO rejecting her request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit her to the next phase of the competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, second, the decision of 19 April 2017 of EPSO rejecting her request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit her to the next phase of the competition;

| — | annul, third, the decision of 6 February 2017 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition under the EPSO/AD/323/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, third, the decision of 6 February 2017 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition under the EPSO/AD/323/16;

| — | annul, fourth, the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016, and in its entirety the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, fourth, the open notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016, and in its entirety the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;

| — | award 50 000 euros in compensation to the applicant for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions; and |
| --- | --- |

—

award 50 000 euros in compensation to the applicant for the damaged incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by EPSO/Selection Board concerning the evaluation of the working experience of the applicant, including the breach of Annex III to the Notice of Competition at issue detailing the required working experience. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment by EPSO/Selection Board concerning the evaluation of the working experience of the applicant, including the breach of Annex III to the Notice of Competition at issue detailing the required working experience.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (1) breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (1) breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to those Regulations and, further, breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

1

---

(1)  Regulation No. 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958 (I), p. 59).

1

---