# C_2018032EN.01003901.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/39

---

Action brought on 17 November 2017 — UR v Commission

(Case T-761/17)

(2018/C 032/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: UR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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 of 11 August 2017, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/322/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the selection board of 11 August 2017, taken following a review, not to include his name on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/322/16;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the selection board made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the applicant’s diploma did not satisfy one of the conditions for admission to the competition. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the selection board made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the applicant’s diploma did not satisfy one of the conditions for admission to the competition.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the competition notice is unlawful, based on the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials [of the European Union]. In particular, the applicant argues that the condition for admission at issue is not connected with the requirements of the posts to be filled as described in the competition notice and is, therefore, contrary to the interests of the service. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the competition notice is unlawful, based on the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials [of the European Union]. In particular, the applicant argues that the condition for admission at issue is not connected with the requirements of the posts to be filled as described in the competition notice and is, therefore, contrary to the interests of the service.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, that the contested decision lacks a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the criteria established by the selection board for assessing the relevance of the applicant’s diploma in the light of the condition for admission at issue have not been disclosed, which the applicant argues has prevented him from being able to prepare an adequate defence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, that the contested decision lacks a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the criteria established by the selection board for assessing the relevance of the applicant’s diploma in the light of the condition for admission at issue have not been disclosed, which the applicant argues has prevented him from being able to prepare an adequate defence.

---