# C_2018063EN.01002001.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/20

---

Action brought on 22 December 2017 — Szentes v Commission

(Case T-830/17)

(2018/C 063/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gyula Szentes (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 24 February 2017 and, insofar as necessary, the act rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 September 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 24 February 2017 and, insofar as necessary, the act rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 September 2017;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the competition notice. The applicant argues that Article 6.4 of Annex III, which precludes requests for review made by reason of a challenge to the assessment made by the selection board having a positive result, is unlawful, being contrary to the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The contested decision, which is based on that provision, is accordingly unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the competition notice. The applicant argues that Article 6.4 of Annex III, which precludes requests for review made by reason of a challenge to the assessment made by the selection board having a positive result, is unlawful, being contrary to the right to an effective remedy provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The contested decision, which is based on that provision, is accordingly unlawful.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The contested decision merely cites extracts from case-law and does not set out the list of selection criteria drawn up by the selection board prior to the assessment of the application forms. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The contested decision merely cites extracts from case-law and does not set out the list of selection criteria drawn up by the selection board prior to the assessment of the application forms.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant criticises, in that regard, the manner in which the selection board assessed the data entered in the application form. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant criticises, in that regard, the manner in which the selection board assessed the data entered in the application form.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice. The applicant submits that the selection board failed to cross-match the various sections of the application form in order to decide whether the applicant met one of the conditions for admission to the competition. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice. The applicant submits that the selection board failed to cross-match the various sections of the application form in order to decide whether the applicant met one of the conditions for admission to the competition.

---