Action brought on 17 January 2021 — VI v Commission

(Case T-20/21)

(2021/C 128/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VI (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 7 October 2020 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), received by the applicant on 7 October 2020, which rejected the applicant’s complaint, lodged on 27 May 2020, including the rejection of applicant’s request for EUR 50 000 compensation;

— annul the decision of 27 February 2020 of EPSO/Selection Board rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit her to the next phase of the competition;

— annul the decision of the EPSO/Selection Board of 26 June 2019 not to include the applicant in the reserve list for the purposes of the competition EPSO/AD/363/18 (AD7) — Administrators in the field of Customs;

— annul the notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 — Administrators (AD 7) — Administrators in the field of Customs, published on 11 October 2018, (1) and in its entirety the reserve list and the names of the candidates placed on it as result of the aforementioned competition;

— order the defendant to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 70 000 for the damages incurred because of the above unlawful contested decisions;

— 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, alleging manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s professional experience — The lack of review of a request under Article 90(1) Staff Regulations — Abuse of discretion by the Selection Board and breach of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations because of a manifestly inadequate selection of a member of the Board to interview the applicant — Improper review of answers provided to the questions by the applicant — Breach of the obligation to carry out a comparative and objective assessment of candidates, and breach of the principles of equal treatment and equal opportunity.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an improper review of answers provided by the applicant to the questions posed by a member of the Selection Board — Breach of Annex I point 1 and Annex II point 2 of the notice of competition — Manifest error of assessment of the answers provided by the applicant.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of stability in the composition of the selection board during the oral test of the competition — Lack of sufficient coordination measures implemented to ensure a consistent and objective assessment, equal opportunities and equal treatment of candidates.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging the breach of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 1 of 1958 (2) — Breach of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations as well as of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III thereto — Breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

(1) OJ 2018 C 368A, p. 1.

(2) Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I 1952-1958, p. 59), as lastly modified by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 adapting certain regulations and decisions in the fields of free movement of goods, freedom of movement for persons, company law, competition policy, agriculture, food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, transport policy, energy, taxation, statistics, trans-European networks, judiciary and fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security, environment, customs union, external relations, foreign, security and defence policy and institutions, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1).