# C_2019270EN.01002901.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/29

---

Action brought on 17 June 2019 — XC v Commission.

(Case T-488/18)

(2019/C 270/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: XC (represented by: C. Bottino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the act excluding the applicant from the open competition EPSO/AD/338/17; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the act excluding the applicant from the open competition EPSO/AD/338/17;

| — | Annul, pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, European Commission decision C(2018) 3969; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, European Commission decision C(2018) 3969;

| — | Annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18;

| — | Order compensation for harm to the extent determined by the Court and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order compensation for harm to the extent determined by the Court and order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU of the applicant’s exclusion from open competition EPSO/AD/338/17

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3 and 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted in particular by the judgment settling Cases T-361/10 Pachitis v Commission and T-587/16 HM v Commission |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3 and 7 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted in particular by the judgment settling Cases T-361/10 Pachitis v Commission and T-587/16 HM v Commission

| 2. | Second plea in law based on the fact that, according to the applicant, the preparation procedure for the e-tray exercise constitutes an infringement of the obligation of secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board laid down in Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law based on the fact that, according to the applicant, the preparation procedure for the e-tray exercise constitutes an infringement of the obligation of secrecy of the proceedings of the selection board laid down in Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.

| 3. | Third plea in law, based on the fact that the conduct of the e-tray exercise in accordance with the arrangements provided for by EPSO constituted indirect discrimination against the applicant in terms of access and an infringement of the obligation to provide reasonable adjustment.
  Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, of European Commission Decision C(2018) 3969 |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, based on the fact that the conduct of the e-tray exercise in accordance with the arrangements provided for by EPSO constituted indirect discrimination against the applicant in terms of access and an infringement of the obligation to provide reasonable adjustment.

Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 263(4) TFEU, of European Commission Decision C(2018) 3969

| 4. | Fourth plea in law based on the infringement of the principles set out in the judgments in Cases T-516/14 Alexandrou v Commission and C-491/15 P Typke v Commission

  Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, of the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18 |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law based on the infringement of the principles set out in the judgments in Cases T-516/14 Alexandrou v Commission and C-491/15 P Typke v Commission

Concerning the application for annulment, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, of the reserve list of open competition EPSO/AD/356/18

| 5. | Fifth plea in law alleging that EPSO was not entitled to fail to submit its request for re-examination to the selection board within the meaning of point 4.2.2 of the General rules governing open competitions or to take its place in decisions and/or statements of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law alleging that EPSO was not entitled to fail to submit its request for re-examination to the selection board within the meaning of point 4.2.2 of the General rules governing open competitions or to take its place in decisions and/or statements of reasons.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law alleging infringement of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and of the Directive concerning discrimination on the grounds of disability. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law alleging infringement of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and of the Directive concerning discrimination on the grounds of disability.

---