Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2022:424
Date: 2022-07-06
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

Action brought on 1 March 2021 – Colombani v EEAS (Case T-129/21) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Jean-Marc Colombani (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer) Defendant: European External Action Service Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the decision of EEAS rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of Head of the EU Delegation to Canada, notified by a note of 6 July 2020 signed by the Director of Human Resources; annul the decision of EEAS rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of Director MENA, notified by a note of 17 April 2020 signed by the Director of Human Resources; annul the decision of EEAS rejecting the applicant’s complaint R/353/20; order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. 1. First plea in law, relating to unlawfulness of the rejection of the applicant’s application as a national diplomat and a plea of illegality in respect of the vacancy notices covered by the application, namely that concerning the post of Director for Middle East and North Africa (MENA) (vacancy notice 2020/48) and that concerning the post of Head of the Delegation to Canada (vacancy notice 2020/134). 2. Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment with regard to the selection requirement relating to experience in a middle management post or equivalent function for at least two years; 3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, legal certainty and predictability in that the assessment of the professional experience is narrowly applied to the applicant in contrast with the flexibility shown with regard to the other applicants and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; 4. Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s grade and infringement of the principle that a person may not invoke his own fault; 5. Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the type of functions performed by the applicant. ____________