EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/45

Action brought on 8 February 2018 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-71/18)

(2018/C 112/58)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/339/17 — Administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Financial economics, 2. Macroeconomics, published in OJ C 386 A of 16 November 2017;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 263 TFEU, 264 TFEU and 266 TFEU, in that the Commission failed to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-566/10 P, or with the judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-124/13 and T-191/13, in which it was held that open competition notices which restrict the candidates’ choice of second language to only English, French and German are unlawful.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 342 TFEU and of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU, of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 6(3) TEU and Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1 and of Articles 1d(1) and (6), 27(2) and 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as those provisions prohibit the imposition on European citizens and officials of the European institutions of language restrictions which are not provided for in a general and objective manner by the internal rules of the institutions contemplated in Article 6 of Regulation No 1 and not yet adopted, and prohibit the introduction of such limitations unless they are justified by a specific substantiated service-related interest.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6(3) TEU, in so far as it establishes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations as a fundamental right resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers and infringement of the substantive rules concerning the nature and purpose of competition notices, in that, by restricting to three, in a pre-emptive and general manner, the number of languages eligible for use as a second language, the Commission has effectively advanced the assessment of candidates’ linguistic abilities — an assessment which ought to be carried out in the course of the competition itself — to the notice and eligibility stages. Thus, a candidate’s knowledge of languages is given priority vis-à-vis her or his professional knowledge.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 TFEU and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU, of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 2 of Regulation No 1 and of Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations in that, by providing that applications must be sent in English, French or German, and that EPSO will send communications concerning the organisation of the competition to the candidates in the same language, the right of European citizens to communicate with the institutions in their own language has been infringed and individuals who do not have an in-depth knowledge of one of those languages suffer additional discrimination.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1, of Articles 1d(1) and (6) and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, and of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU (failure to state reasons), as well as infringement of the principle of proportionality and distortion of the facts.

The applicant claims in this regard that the statement of reasons put forward by the Commission distorts the facts because it does not follow that the three languages in question are the most frequently used for the translation of documents within the institutions, and that that statement of reasons is disproportionate with regard to the restriction of a fundamental right such as the right not to suffer discrimination on linguistic grounds. In any event, there are less restrictive mechanisms for ensuring rapid translation within the institutions.