# C_2023179EN.01006101.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/61

---

Action brought on 17 March 2023 — VI v Commission

(Case T-147/23)

(2023/C 179/86)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: VI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the following decisions:






  — | decision of 20 May 2022 by which the applicant was informed that she had obtained 53 points for the assessment by Talent Screener in Competition EPSO/AST/150/21 for laboratory technicians, whereas the minimum number of points for admission to the next stage was 57 points; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the following decisions:

—

decision of 20 May 2022 by which the applicant was informed that she had obtained 53 points for the assessment by Talent Screener in Competition EPSO/AST/150/21 for laboratory technicians, whereas the minimum number of points for admission to the next stage was 57 points; and

| — | decision of the appointing authority of 8 December 2022, ARES (2022) s.9324205, rejecting the complaint lodged on 14 June 2022 and registered under number No R/30/22 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

decision of the appointing authority of 8 December 2022, ARES (2022) s.9324205, rejecting the complaint lodged on 14 June 2022 and registered under number No R/30/22 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

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 manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the diplomas and of the length of the applicant’s professional experience, which was arbitrarily reduced by the Selection Board, and infringement of the competition notice, which did not allow for redistribution of the length of professional experience within the various criteria of the Talent Screener. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the evaluation of the diplomas and of the length of the applicant’s professional experience, which was arbitrarily reduced by the Selection Board, and infringement of the competition notice, which did not allow for redistribution of the length of professional experience within the various criteria of the Talent Screener.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board did not have the power to determine the weighting factors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board did not have the power to determine the weighting factors.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 27 and 29 of, and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to, the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board failed to ascertain the accuracy of the degrees and professional experience declared by the candidates in the Talent Screener before drawing up the list of candidates admitted to the next stage at the assessment centre. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 27 and 29 of, and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of Annex III to, the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Selection Board failed to ascertain the accuracy of the degrees and professional experience declared by the candidates in the Talent Screener before drawing up the list of candidates admitted to the next stage at the assessment centre.

---