62020CJ0635_SUM
Case C‑635/20 P
European Commission
v
Italian RepublicandKingdom of Spain
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2023
(Appeal – Rules on languages – Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators’ functions as investigators and team leaders – Knowledge of languages – Restriction of the choice of the second competition language to English, French and German – Language of communication with the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) – Regulation No 1 – Staff Regulations – Article 1d(1) – Difference in treatment based on language – Justification – Interests of the service – Requirement to recruit administrators who are ‘immediately operational’ – Judicial review – Standard of proof required)
Officials – Competitions – Holding of an open competition – Languages of participation in tests – Limitation of the choice of second language – Discrimination based on language – Justification having regard to the interests of the service – Observance of the principle of proportionality
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 1(d), 27 and 28(f))
(see paragraphs 66-68)
Officials – Competitions – Holding of an open competition – Languages of participation in tests – Limitation of the choice of second language – Discrimination based on language – Justification based on the interest of the service in recruiting people who are immediately operational – Judicial review – Scope
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 1(d))
(see paragraphs 69, 70, 73-76, 80, 83, 96, 99, 100)
Officials – Competitions – Holding of an open competition – Languages of participation in tests – Equal treatment – Requirement of specific linguistic knowledge – Statement of reasons – Justification having regard to the interests of the service – Observance of the principle of proportionality
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 1(d) and 27, first para.)
(see paragraphs 101-105, 109, 120, 121, 185, 186)
Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the facts or evidence have been distorted – Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence – Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion
(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
(see paragraphs 115, 127-127, 135-140, 150, 151, 165, 175, 192)
See the text of the decision.