Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2025:424
Date: 2025-04-30
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Staff cases

Action brought on 28 June 2024 – EL v Commission (Case T-325/24) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: EL (represented by: P. Billiet, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the decision of the Selection Board in the European Commission’s internal competition COM/AD6/2022 notified to the applicant on 29 June 2023 and upheld by the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Employment in response to complaint No. R/565/23 (‘the contested decisions’) in so far as they established that the applicant did not qualify for the next stage of competition COM/AD6/2022 (written assignment) by not having succeeded in the multiple choice questions (MCQ) test; order the defendant to immediately readmit the applicant to the internal competition COM/AD6/2022; and order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and consequent infringement by the defendant of the notice of competition for the European Commission’s internal competition COM/AD6/2022, in which the applicant participated. The defendant committed a manifest error of assessment when cancelling seven questions of the applicant’s computer-based multiple-choice question test and redistributing the points initially allocated to those questions among the remaining questions of that test (‘neutralising’), failing to correctly apply mathematical rounding rules, thereby effectively raising the pass mark from 35/50, as established in the Notice, to 36.04/50. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principles of proportionality and fairness. The defendant violated the principles of proportionality and fairness when neutralising seven questions of the applicant’s MCQ test and increasing the pass mark from 35/50 to 36.04/50 when a less onerous option was available (34.88/50), thus allowing its mistake to adversely affect the applicant in disproportional and unfair manner. Had the defendant not committed the illegalities identified in the application, the applicant would have succeeded in the MCQ test and qualified for the next stage of competition COM/AD6/2022 (written assignment). ____________