Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2024:195
Date: 2024-03-20
Language of the case: English
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - successful;Staff cases - successful

7.1.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 4/33 Action brought on 13 October 2018 — EO (1) v Commission (Case T-623/18) (2019/C 4/44) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: EO (2) (represented by: E. Metodieva, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the decision of 12 December 2017 of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/323/16 — Investigators (AD 7) for the following profiles: 1. Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption; 2. Investigators: Customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods, not to include the applicant’s name in the reserve list for the first profile of the said competition; — set aside in its entirety EPSO’s decision of 9 July 2018 to reject the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations regarding the decision of the EPSO selection board not to include her in the said reserve list; — order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant in the form of lost benefits as a result of her non-inclusion in the said reserve list, — order the defendant to pay the applicant the expenses for legal assistance and legal representation before and during the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law and, in addition, relies on all the arguments listed in the complaint made by her under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. 1. First plea in law, alleging inadequate behaviour on the part of one of the members of the selection board, allegedly resulting in a failure to examine the applicant properly. 2. Second plea in law, alleging the lack of impartiality of one of the members of the selection board for the competition in question. 3. Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the assessors. 4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the competition in question violated the language regime. 5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that certain irregularities affected the case study in the competition in question. 6. Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal and fair treatment said to result from the allegedly excessive period of one month over which the competition in question was carried out. 7. Seventh plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons in respect of the applicant’s assessment. (1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality. (2) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.