# C_2018152EN.01003701.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/37

---

Action brought on 15 February 2018 — VG v Commission

(Case T-84/18)

(2018/C 152/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: VG (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 Regulations 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 Regulations 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 30 October 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 31 July 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, first, the decision of 30 October 2017 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 31 July 2017;

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

—

annul, second, the EPSO decision of 19 April 2017 rejecting her request for review of the decision of EPSO/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 candidates selected for the purposes of the EPSO/AD/323/16 competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | annul, fourth, the notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, fourth, the notice of competition EPSO/AD/323/16, published on 26 May 2016; (1)

1

| — | annul, finally, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, finally, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition;

| — | award damages to the applicant amounting to 50 000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

award damages to the applicant amounting to 50 000 euros;

| — | 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 a manifest error of assessment by EPSO/the Selection Board in the evaluation of the applicant’s working experience and, further, the infringement of Annex III to the notice of competition at issue detailing the required work experience. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by EPSO/the Selection Board in the evaluation of the applicant’s working experience and, further, the infringement of Annex III to the notice of competition at issue detailing the required work experience.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, infringement 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 infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard, and, further, infringement 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 infringement of Article s 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (2) breach of Article s 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 infringement of Article s 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1/58, (2) breach of Article s 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.

2

---

(1)  OJ 2016 C 187, p. A/1.

1

(2)  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).

2

---