Order — ECLI:EU:T:2018:343
Date: 2018-06-08
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2018 — Spychalski v Commission (Case T‑590/16) (Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EPSO/AD 177/10-ECO2013 — Assessment of the main language — Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) 1. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 126 and 130) (see paras 16, 19, 20, 45) 2. Actions brought by officials — Action directed against a decision of non-inclusion on a competition reserve list — Possibility of invoking irregularity of the competition notice to challenge non-inclusion — Manifestly incorrect reading of the competition notice by the applicant — Dismissal of the action (see paras 38-45) 3. Actions brought by officials — Subject-matter — Directions to the administration — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 46) Re: Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD 177/10-ECO2013, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list and, secondly, that the appointing authority be required to add the applicant’s name to the reserve list established on the basis of the open competition in question, subject to the period of validity of the addition being equal to the period of validity of the list. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action on the basis that it is in part manifestly lacking any basis in law and in part on the ground that the General Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it; 2. Orders Michał Spychalski to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.