62020TO0736_INF
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 February 2022 –OP v Commission
(Case T‑736/20) (
1
)
(Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 – Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for the competition – Obligation to state reasons – Equal treatment)
1.
Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility – Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint – Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision – None
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)
(see paras 23, 24)
2.
Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Obligation to state reasons – Scope
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.)
(see para. 29)
3.
Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Separate plea in law from the one concerning substantive legality
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.)
(see para. 32)
4.
Actions brought by officials – Admissibility criteria – Dismissal of an action on the merits without ruling on admissibility – Discretion of the EU judicature
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see para. 36)
5.
Officials – Equal treatment – Meaning
(see para. 41)
6.
Officials – Acts of the administration – Presumption of lawfulness – Challenge – Burden of proof – Obligation to put forward evidence capable of challenging the lawfulness of the act – Scope
(see paras 42-47, 50, 51)
Operative part
1.
The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
2.
OP shall pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.