# C_2016419EN.01005201.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/52

---

Action brought on 20 September 2016 — Vincent Villeneuve v Commission

(Case T-671/16)

(2016/C 419/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vincent Villeneuve (Montpellier, France) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/303/15 (AD 7) of 5 November 2015 concerning the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/303/15 (AD 7) of 5 November 2015 concerning the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the contested decision does not explain the reasons why the applicant does not have sufficient professional experience in the field of the competition for his application to be admitted to the next stage of that competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the contested decision does not explain the reasons why the applicant does not have sufficient professional experience in the field of the competition for his application to be admitted to the next stage of that competition.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the selection board, in that the verification of the minimum professional experience in the field of the competition which the selection board was initially required to conduct could not relate to the applicant’s suitability for the vacancy and to the selection criteria set out in that regard given that the verification stage for the admission criteria takes place during the final stages of the competition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the selection board, in that the verification of the minimum professional experience in the field of the competition which the selection board was initially required to conduct could not relate to the applicant’s suitability for the vacancy and to the selection criteria set out in that regard given that the verification stage for the admission criteria takes place during the final stages of the competition.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions and also procedural defects and a consequent manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations, Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions and also procedural defects and a consequent manifest error of assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment of candidates with regard to the selection based on qualifications. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment of candidates with regard to the selection based on qualifications.

---