Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:1000
Date: 2015-12-17
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Italy

Action brought on 23 May 2013 – Italy v Commission (Case T-275/13) Language of the case: Italian Parties Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, lawyer, G. Palmieri, agent) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought Annul notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 to draw up two reserve lists of 37 and 27 posts respectively to fill vacant posts for administrators (AD 7) in the fields of macroeconomics and financial economics. Order the Commission to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments This action has been brought against notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 to draw up two reserve lists of 37 and 27 posts respectively to fill vacant posts for administrators (AD 7) in the fields of macroeconomics and financial economics In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven plea(s) in law. First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU. The Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P, which declares competition notices which limit to English, French and German only the languages which candidates may offer as a second language to be unlawful. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 342 TFEU and Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58. It is argued in this regard that, by limiting to three the languages which can be chosen as a second language by candidates in open competitions of the European Union, the Commission has in practice created new rules on the use of languages, thus encroaching on the exclusive competence of the Council in this area. Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union; Article 6(3) EU; Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials; Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27, second paragraph, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials. It is argued in this regard that the language restriction introduced by the Commission is discriminatory because the rules cited prohibit the imposition on European citizens and on officials of the institutions language restrictions which are not provided for in a general and objective manner by the internal rules of the institutions contemplated by Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58, and not yet adopted, and prohibit the introduction of such limitations in the absence of a specific interest of the service, backed up by reasons. Fourth plea in law, concerning the breach of Article 6(3) EU in so far as it lays down the principle of the protection of legitimate interests as a fundamental right derived from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. It is argued in this regard that the Commission has breached the expectation of citizens that they will be able to choose any language of the European Union as a second language, as they always were until 2007 and as was authoritatively confirmed by the judgment of the court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P. Fifth plea in law, concerning the misuse of powers and the breach of essential rules inherent in the nature and purpose of competition notices. It is argued in this regard that, by restricting to three in advance and in general the languages which may be chosen as a second language to three, the Commission has in fact anticipated at the stage of the notice and the admission criteria the verification of the linguistic competences of the candidates, which should be carried out during the competition. In that way, linguistic knowledge becomes the decisive factor with regard to professional knowledge. Sixth plea in law, concerning breach of Articles 18 and 24(4) TFEU ; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ; Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58 ; and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations of Officials. It is argued in this regard that, through the provision that applications had to be sent in in English, French or German and that EPSO would send candidates communications relating to the progress of the competition in the same language, the right of European citizens to dialogue with the European institutions in their own language has been breached and further discrimination has been introduced against those who do not have a thorough knowledge of those three languages. Seventh plea in law, concerning the breach of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58 ; Article 1d(1) and (6) and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; and Article 296(2) TFEU (failure to state reasons) and breach of the principle of proportionality. Distortion of the facts. It is argued in this regard that the Commission justified the restriction to three languages by the requirement that the new recruits should be able to communicate within the institutions. That justification distorts the facts because it is not the case that the three languages in question are the ones most used for communication between the various language groups within the institutions; and it is disproportionate with regard to the restriction of a fundamental right such as the right not to suffer discrimination on grounds of language.