# C_2022398EN.01003501.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/35

---

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — NZ v Commission

(Case T-535/22)

(2022/C 398/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NZ (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | initiate the measures of organisation of procedure requested in paragraph 30 [of the application] and a measure aimed at clarifying the questions raised in paragraphs 42, 43 and 59 [of the application];
  and, on conclusion of the proceedings, |
| --- | --- |

—

initiate the measures of organisation of procedure requested in paragraph 30 [of the application] and a measure aimed at clarifying the questions raised in paragraphs 42, 43 and 59 [of the application];

and, on conclusion of the proceedings,

| — | annul the contested decisions;
  as well as, in any case, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions;

as well as, in any case,

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against the decision of the European Commission of 10 February 2022, taken with a view to complying with the judgment of 6 October 2021, NZ v Commission (T-668/20, not published, EU:T:2021:667), confirming the decision to not enter her name on the reserve list of internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons, the misuse of powers, the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in particular by the defendant’s refusal to initiate measures which allow for actual compliance with the annulling judgment delivered previously by the Court. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons, the misuse of powers, the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in particular by the defendant’s refusal to initiate measures which allow for actual compliance with the annulling judgment delivered previously by the Court.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the competition notice, in particular since the selection board has applied very different coefficients to the two tests comprising the oral examination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the competition notice, in particular since the selection board has applied very different coefficients to the two tests comprising the oral examination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of equal treatment due to fluctuations in the composition of the selection board. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of equal treatment due to fluctuations in the composition of the selection board.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the rules which govern the functioning of the selection boards and the selection committees, namely:






  — | selection board composed only of alternate members in the vast majority of formations having assessed the candidates, including the applicant; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the rules which govern the functioning of the selection boards and the selection committees, namely:

—

selection board composed only of alternate members in the vast majority of formations having assessed the candidates, including the applicant;

| — | the identical nature of the questions posed to the candidates during the tests; |
| --- | --- |

—

the identical nature of the questions posed to the candidates during the tests;

| — | the lack of transparency and of coherence in the rules used for scoring candidates; |
| --- | --- |

—

the lack of transparency and of coherence in the rules used for scoring candidates;

| — | fluctuation in the selection board’s composition. |
| --- | --- |

—

fluctuation in the selection board’s composition.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union due to the infringement set out in the second plea. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union due to the infringement set out in the second plea.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging the infringement of the duty of care.

---